Economic Impact of Oakland County's Green Infrastructure

Economic Impact of Oakland County’s
Green Infrastructure
Environmental Stewardship
Program
Oakland County Planning & Economic Services
L. Brooks Patterson – County Executive

Oakland County Planning
Coordination &
Review
LAND USE
AND ZONING
ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
CORE
PROGRAM
AREAS
Community
Assistance
DOWNTOWN /
COMMERCIAL
REDEVELOPMENT
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
Information
Assistance

What Is Green Infrastructure?
an interconnected network of
waterways, wetlands,
woodlands, wildlife habitats,
and other natural areas;
greenways, parks and other
conservation lands; working
farms, ranches, and forests; and
wilderness and other open
spaces that support native
species, maintain natural
ecological processes, sustain air
and water resources, and
contribute to the health and
quality of life for America’s
communities and people
(Benedict and McMahon 2002).

Community Assets
Balance
= Sustainability
Gray infrastructure is the
interconnected network of
roads, buildings, parking lots,
and utilities.
GREY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS
Asset
Lighting Systems
Public Water System
Roads, Bridges,
Sidewalks
GASB‐34, etc.
Public Benefit
Public safety
Clean drinking water
Transportation,
Walkable Communities
Asset
Waterways, Wetlands
Natural areas
Forests
How do you estimate the
$ value of these assets?
Green infrastructure is the
interconnected network of open
spaces, natural areas and
waterways.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS
Public Benefit
Flood control,
Recreation
Wildlife habitat
Scenic beauty
Carbon sequestration
Air purification
Soil stability

Areas of Research
1. Residential Property Values
2. Recreational Benefits To Residents
3. Water‐based Tourism
4. Ecosystem Services Associated with the County’s Water
Resources
5. Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Residential Property Values
Land Policy Institute Issued Report:
Economic Valuation of Natural Resource Amenities: A Hedonic Analysis of Hillsdale and
Oakland Counties
A hedonic valuation model was used to isolate and estimate the influence that proximity to
green infrastructure amenities has on residential property values.
• Residential property sales (2000‐2006)
• Property locations derived through GIS

What’s A Hedonic Valuation Model?
Mathematical Formula:
yi(λ) = Σβjxij(ψ) + ΣκsZis+ υi
i ε [1,…,n]
Where yi(λ) = [yi(λ) – 1] / (λ) if (λ) ≠ 0
yi(λ) = log(yi) if (λ) = 0
xij = [xij(ψ) – 1] / (ψ) if (ψ) ≠ 0
xij = log(xij) if (ψ) ≠ 0

Hedonic Valuation Model ‐ Conceptual Framework
Housing Structure
(Sq.Ft., # of Rooms, ect.)
Trend variables
(appreciation or depreciation)
Closeness To
Natural Resource
Amenities
Hedonic Valuation
Model
To Estimate Impact That
Closeness to Natural Resources Has on
Residential Property Values
Water Resources
(Lakes, Rivers)
Trail & Path Network
Parks & Recreation
Land

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Residential Property Values
Water Resources
The average increase in value for properties within 15 meters
of a lake is $55,082.
*compared to properties located more than 150 meters away.
Parks & Recreation
Within 15 Meters +3.1 % + $7942
15-75 Meters +3.2 % + $8198
75 to 150 meters +2.2 % + $5636
120-300 meters +2.6% + $6661
300-450 meters insignificant
*compared to properties located at more than 450 meters away.

Impact of Lakes on Residential Property Value
Water Resources
The average increase in value for properties within 15 meters
of a lake is $55,082.
*compared to properties located more than 150 meters away.
18,500 (estimate # of residential properties)
x $55,000 (additional value)
= $1,017,500,000 (impact)

Impact of Recreation Lands on Residential
Property Value
Parks & Recreation
Within 15 Meters +3.1 % + $7942
15-75 Meters +3.2 % + $8198
75 to 150 meters +2.2 % + $5636
120-300 meters +2.6% + $6661
300-450 meters insignificant
*compared to properties located at more than 450 meters away.
Within 15 meters
18,900 (residential properties)
x $8,000 (additional value)
Between 15 and 75 meters
33,400 (residential properties)
x $8,200 (additional value)
= $151,200,000 (impact)
= $273,880,000 (impact)

MSU’s LPI Study Implications
• The impact of green infrastructure to local property tax income is substantial. So
efforts to protect those resources are sensible responses to protecting value.
• Public services are supported by taxes. So, understanding the important links
provided in this study between local economies and natural resources is crucial.
• Estimated impact can help target areas for conservation.
• Local decision makers can enhance long‐term financial viability of their
communities through green infrastructure based strategies.

Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources
In 2007, the County retained the services of Public Sector Consultants (PSC).
PSC performed a study that documents, and quantifies where possible, how green infrastructure
(water resources in particular) benefit Oakland County’s residents and businesses.

Research Areas of Focus
Components include:
• Estimating recreational values to Oakland County residents
• Estimating tourism activity and values
• Reviewing ecosystem service values
• Assessing the impact on business location decisions and employee recruiting and
retention
Used different valuation approaches. Surveys and secondary data were used to quantify
benefits in monetary terms.

Estimating Recreational Values to Oakland County Residents
Survey:
In April 2008, PSC fielded telephone survey of 600 households to examine county residents’
recreational use of the county’s green infrastructure and water resources.
Survey addressed three primary issues:
• Residents’ perceptions of the relative importance of selected characteristics with a focus on green
infrastructure components and water resources,
• the frequency of use of recreational resources, and
• the frequency of water‐based recreation activities.
Benefits Recreational transfer approach: use levels (from survey)
x existing value estimates (from published research
of various water‐based recreational activities)
= Estimated Value associated with a day spent on
various water‐based recreational activities

Estimating Recreational Values to Oakland County Residents
Estimate figures are reported as consumer surplus. Consumer surplus is not actual spending. It
is the difference between an individual’s maximum willingness to pay for access to an amenity
and what the individual actually has to pay to gain access.
Consumer Surplus Calculation:
Maximum willingness to pay
– What they actually pay
= Value remaining after actual expenses

Estimating Recreational Values to Oakland County Residents
Based on conservative estimates, Oakland County’s water resources generate about $200
million annually to county residents through five primary activities.
(Existing Research) X
(PSC Survey) =

Estimating Recreational Values to Oakland County
Residents ‐ Key Findings
• About 40 % of residents use recreational resources at least once per week.
• Residents use water recreation sites primarily for general recreation (eg., walking, running,
biking, picnicking, relaxing, etc.).
• More users (80 %) visit parks than any other recreational resource.
• Wetlands are visited most frequently by users (ave. of 29 visits per year per household).
• The quality of the natural environment and scenic beauty are more important to residents
than specific components like trails, pathways, and water resources.
• Even based on conservative estimates, five primary water‐based recreational activities
generate an estimated $200 million annually in recreational benefits to county residents.

Estimating Tourism Activity and Values
Source Data: Michigan State University’s Michigan Travel Market Survey
• Survey focus is on “pleasure trips,” defined as overnight or day trips to places at least
50 miles from home
• Does not include day trips from people who live within 50‐mile radius
Review Findings:
• Water‐based activities do not figure prominently among the primary reasons people visit
Oakland County. Visiting friends and relatives was cited as the most important reason
for pleasure travel to Oakland County.

Reported Activities During Visit
~ 161,000 trips (2007)

Reported Activities During Visit
About 20 % or ~ 78,000 trips (2007)

Tourism Activity and Values ‐ Key Findings
• Not possible to estimate economic impact of water‐based recreation with this data.
• Nonetheless, recreational activities figure prominently in visitors’ activities while in the
county.
• The County attracted an estimated 394,514 pleasure trips from Michigan, neighboring
states, and the province of Ontario during 2007 generating an estimated $177 million in
spending.
• About 1.3 million people visited Oakland County on these trips and spent an average of 3.5
days in the county.
• Based on the fact that in 2007 an estimated 78,000 pleasure trips to Oakland County
involved water‐based recreation, Oakland County’s water resources have a significant
economic impact.

Estimating Ecosystem Service Values
Ecosystem services are defined as “the wide range of conditions and processes through which
natural ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, help sustain and fulfill human life”
(Daily et al. 1997).
An oft‐cited 1997 article (Costanza et al. 1997) estimated the economic value of the Earth’s ecosystem
services at about $33 trillion annually.
– Marine ecosystems are responsible for about 63% of the total value worldwide
– Freshwater ecosystems (i.e., wetlands, rivers, streams, and lakes) about 20% worldwide.

Estimating Ecosystem Service Values
‐ Words of Caution ‐
It’s not always possible to assign meaningful ecosystem service values to portions of ecosystems
that fall within arbitrary political boundaries.
Also, value estimates are rough for a number of reasons including the following (Daily et al. 2000;
Hawkins 2003):
• Few ecosystem services have observable market values, so non‐market techniques must often be
used
• Knowledge of the services provided by eco‐systems is incomplete.
• Different individuals may place different values on an ecosystem.
• Many ecosystem services are interdependent.
• Values often depend on location and time.
• Apply to very different scales.

Ecosystem Services Associated With Freshwater Resources
Costanza et al. (1997) identify ten specific ecosystem services provided by or influenced by
freshwater resources.
Important Note: research does not
include climate regulation among the
ecosystem services to which lakes, rivers,
and wetlands contribute.
Microclimate regulation is a local, rather
than global, ecosystem service. Oakland
County is likely to capture most of the
microclimate regulation benefits
associated with its lakes and wetlands.

Ecosystem Services Associated With Freshwater Resources

Economic Impact of Ecosystem Services – Key Findings
Methodology:
•review sources of ecosystem
services associated with freshwater
resources
•present estimates of economic
values associated with those
services
•estimate the values produced by
Oakland County’s water resources.
Calculation:
Acres of resource in Oakland County
x Value estimated from Costanza et al. 1997
Value for Oakland County Water Resources
Key Findings:
• Oakland County’s freshwater resources produce substantial ecosystem services.
• Produce an estimated $806 million in ecosystem services annually, $167 million attributable to 34,600 acres of lakes and ponds and
$639 million stemming from 56,400 acres of wetlands.
• Three services (disturbance regulation values associated with wetlands, water supply values of wetlands, and water regulation values
of lakes and rivers) account for almost three‐quarters of the total value of freshwater ecosystem services in the county.

Business Location and Employee
Attraction/Retention Survey
Existing Literature Review:
Existing research dating back to the early 1980s documents the importance of quality‐of‐life
factors to firm location decisions, particularly for firms for which employees are more important
than location‐specific factors.
In general, the literature concludes that business‐oriented factors such as proximity to
customers, labor and costs, and transportation are more important than quality‐of‐life factors in
location decisions. However, some types of firms (e.g., New Economy firms, small firms) tend
to place more importance on quality‐of‐life factors than do other types of firms.
Survey:
Administered a web‐based survey to assess the importance of quality‐of‐life factors in firms’
decisions to locate in the county. The survey also explored the perceived impact of these factors
on firms’ ability to attract employees to Oakland County.
Survey Characteristics ‐
• Non‐random (non‐scientific)
• New Economy: financial, health,
information, and professional services
• Small (20 employees or fewer)
• 217 out of 719 survey respondents
(29%)

Business Location and Employee
Attraction/Retention Survey
The survey asked how important each of a number of factors was to:
(a) their decision about where to locate their firm, and
(b) their ability to attract and retain employees.

Business Location and Employee
Attraction/Retention Survey Analysis
Community
Factors
Education
Lifestyle
Green
Infrastructure
* % Ranking the factors that are considered at least moderately important to firm location
decision

Business Location Decision Analysis
Key Findings:
•A significantly greater proportion
of New Economy firms ranked
quality of natural areas as
“extremely” or “very” important
in their location decisions.
• Smaller firms placed a significantly
greater emphasis on
water recreation, outdoor
recreation, and healthy
downtowns in their location
decisions than other firms.
* % Ranking the factors that are considered very or extremely important to firms location
decision.

Business Employee Attraction/Retention Analysis
Community
Factors
Education
Lifestyle
Green
Infrastructure
* % Ranking factors considered at least moderately important to firms ability to attract and retain
employees

Business Employee Attraction/Retention Analysis
Key Findings:
•Smaller firms are significantly
less likely than other firms to
believe that community and
recreational infrastructure are
important in helping them recruit
employees. They are significantly
more likely than other firms to
believe that healthy downtowns
and culture and entertainment
are important to recruiting and
retention.
* % Ranking the factors that are considered very or extremely important to firms ability to
attract and retain employees.
•New Economy firms are also
significantly more likely than
other firms to rank healthy
downtowns as important factors
in helping them recruit. They are
significantly less likely to believe
that community characteristics
are important to recruiting and
retention.

Business Location and Employee
Attraction/Retention Survey ‐ Key Findings
• A substantial proportion of firms felt the following amenities were at least of moderate
importance in their decision to locate in Oakland County:
• access to parks, trails, and paths (34 %)
• access to water‐based recreation (23 %)
• proximity to natural areas (18 %)
• Most respondents (59 %) said that access to parks, trails, and paths influenced recruiting
and retention.
• 54 % said that access to water‐based recreation was at least moderately important in
recruiting and
• 49 % said the same of proximity to natural areas.
• New Economy firms and smaller firms placed a greater importance on many green
infrastructure factors than did other types of firms.

Summary
Residential Property Values –
• Lakes ‐ Add over $1 Billion
• Parks and Recreation Land ‐ Add over $425 Million
Recreation –
• Water resources alone generate about $200 million annually
Tourism –
• Over 40% of trips involved outdoor recreation
• Around 20% of these trips involved water‐based recreation
Ecosystem Services –
• Generate an estimated $806 million annually in services to county residents
Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention –
• New Economy firms tend to place more importance on quality‐of‐life factors than
other types of firms

Oakland County Planning
Our Natural Advantage
The Planning Group is one of four functional
groups within the Oakland County Planning and
Economic Development Services Division (PEDS).
The Planning Group provides consultative services
and products that address county and local
economic, community, and environmental topics.
The primary clients of the Planning Group are the
County Administration, local governments, not-forprofit
organizations, businesses and developers.
Oakland County is rich in natural resources.
The county has been blessed with over 1,400
lakes (more than any other county in the state),
is home to the headwaters of five major river
systems, and has over 89,000 acres of park
and recreation lands. The rolling landform left
by receding glaciers some 14,000 years ago
has given birth to special natural areas, some
unique to the entire state and beyond.
This special natural setting is a primary
reason for the substantial growth and
development which has occurred over the past
50 years. Now we are confronting the question
of balance and sustainability in maintaining
our “Natural Advantage”.
The public’s health has direct ties to our
natural environment. Our natural environment
also serves as a cornerstone of our excellent
quality of life. We have available to us a
great diversity of natural and man-made
environments in Oakland County. From the
cosmopolitan city, to historic town centers, to
abundant lakes and rivers, to rural and natural
country settings, we have it all. This diversity
has offered us a great range of choice and the
freedom to live in a setting which matches our
desired lifestyle. These elements of diversity
and choice must be retained in order to sustain
our quality of life advantage in attracting a
skilled workforce that supports our economy.
Planning Group Mission
Serve the public interest by providing planning,
economic development, and design services that
establish processes and best practices so that
Oakland County continues to grow as a diverse,
healthy, complete, and desirable living and working
environment.
For additional information, contact:
Bret Rasegan, Planning Group Supervisor
at (248) 858-5445 or
raseganb@oakgov.com
The Economic Impact of Oakland
County’s Green Infrastructure
L. Brooks Patterson, County Executive
Planning & Economic Development Services

Impact of Oakland County’s
Green Infrastructure on the
Local Economy:
Green Infrastructure is defined as an
interconnected network of open spaces, natural
areas, and waterways.
Oakland County Planning & Economic
Development Services (PEDS) worked with
Michigan State University’s Land Policy Institute
to estimate the impact that proximity to green
infrastructure amenities (e.g., lakes, recreational
lands, etc.) has on residential property values.
PEDS also worked with Public Sector Consultants
to document, and quantify where possible,
how green infrastructure (water resources in
particular) benefits Oakland County’s residents
and businesses.
Residential Property Values:
• Lakes add over $1 billion in value to
Oakland County’s residential properties.
• Parks and Recreational lands add over
$425 million in value to Oakland County’s
residential properties.
Household Recreation:
• Water resources generate about $200
million annually to county residents.
• About 40 % of County residents use
recreational resources at least once per
week.
• More users (80 %) visit parks than any
other recreational resource.
Tourism:
• The County attracted an estimated
394,514 pleasure trips from Michigan,
neighboring states, and the province
of Ontario during 2007, generating an
estimated $177 million in spending .
• About 1.3 million people visited
Oakland County on these trips, spending
an average of 3.5 days.
• Over 40% of these trips involved
outdoor recreation at some point and
20% involved water-based recreation in
particular.
Environmental Stewardship Program
Oakland County
Planning and Economic Development Services
Business Location and Employee
Attraction/Retention:
The term New Economy is defined as a global,
entrepreneurial, and knowledge-based
economy in which the keys to success lie in
the extent to which knowledge, technology,
and innovation are embedded in products
and services.
In terms of business decisions, research
indicates New Economy firms tend to place
more importance on quality-of-life factors
than do other types of firms.
Ecosystem Services:
Ecosystem Services are defined as the
processes by which the environment
produces resources that people often take for
granted such as clean water, timber, habitat
for fisheries, and pollination of native and
agricultural plants. Ultimately, ecosystem
services help to sustain, enrich, and fulfill
human life.
Oakland County’s freshwater ecosystems
(i.e., wetlands, rivers, streams, and lakes) are
estimated to produce $806 million annually
in services to county residents.

Economic Valuation of Natural
Resource Amenities: A Hedonic Analysis
of Hillsdale and Oakland Counties
Report #2007-09
Shaping the Future from the Ground Up

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCE AMENITIES:
A HEDONIC ANALYSIS OF HILLSDALE AND OAKLAND COUNTIES
Report #3
Series on Economic Impact and Valuation Studies
In Natural Resources and Conservation
Hannah Professor Research Program
Land Policy Institute
Michigan State University
Project Team
Soji Adelaja
Yohannes G. Hailu
Rachel Kuntzsch
Mary Beth Lake
Max Fulkerson
Charles McKeown
Laila Racevskis
Nigel Griswold
LPI Report # 2007-09
In partnership with:
Heart of the Lakes Center for Land Conservation Policy
December 3, 2007

Acknowledgements
The Land Policy Institute (LPI) at Michigan State University would like to extend our
gratitude to our partners in this initiative: Heart of the Lakes Center for Land
Conservation Policy and members of the Conservation Advisory Committee. We would
also like to thank those individuals and agencies that provided valuable information for
the research activities. Finally, this work would not have been possible without funding
support from the Americana Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and LPI’s People
and Land Initiative.
ii

About the Project Team Members
Soji Adelaja
Dr. Soji Adelaja is the John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in Land Policy,
Director of the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University and Co-
Director of the People and Land (PAL) Initiative. He holds joint faculty
appointments as Professor in the Departments of Agricultural Economics;
Geography; and Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies.
Dr. Adelaja holds a Ph.D. in Economics from West Virginia University. Prior
to joining the faculty at MSU, he served as the Executive Dean of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, the Dean of Cook College, the Executive Director of
the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, and Director of Rutgers
Cooperative Extension at Rutgers University. He was a faculty member at
Rutgers University where he served in various capacities, including Chair of
Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics; and Founder and Director of
several centers, including the Food Policy Institute, the Food Innovation
Center, and the Ecopolicy Center. Recognitions include the Rutgers
Presidential Award for Distinguished Public Service, the New Jersey
Legislature Citation for Outstanding Scholarship and the New Jersey
Governor’s Recognition for Contributions to the Garden State. Dr. Adelaja’s
interests span a variety of areas including agricultural policy at the urban
fringe, land use policy, industrial economic development, and public/private
partnerships.
Yohannes G. Hailu
Dr. Yohannes G. Hailu is Visiting Assistant Professor and Associate
Director of the Hannah Professor Research Program at the Land Policy
Institute at Michigan State University. He is responsible for programmatic
leadership of projects and initiatives of the Hannah Research Program. He
holds a Ph.D. in Natural Resource Economics from West Virginia
University. Dr. Hailu’s prior research encompasses regional growth
modeling, the role of natural amenities in economic growth, linkages
between growth and land use change, economic growth and inequality,
renewable energy policy, and land policy analysis.
iii

Rachel Kuntzsch
Rachel Kuntzsch is Executive Director of Heart of the Lakes Center for
Land Conservation Policy, a nonprofit organization established in 2004 to
serve as the voice for Michigan’s land conservancies and to educate
policymakers on key conservation issues. Rachel manages Heart of the
Lakes through her consulting firm, Kuntzsch Business Services, Inc.
(KBS), which also specializes in alternative and renewable energy.
Through KBS, Rachel manages and serves as Executive Director to the
Greater Lansing Area Clean Cities Coalition, a nonprofit membership
organization which promotes the usage of clean vehicle technologies and
fuels in mid-Michigan. In 2002, Rachel was a part of the team that
launched NextEnergy, a nonprofit organization working to accelerate the
alternative energy industry in Michigan. She remains a consultant to
NextEnergy, facilitating various consortia and developing funding
opportunities for alternative and renewable energy projects. Rachel also
served as a business development manager for the Michigan Economic
Development Corporation and has worked in the private sector in sales
and marketing capacities. Rachel earned a Bachelor of Science from
Michigan State University.
Mary Beth Lake
Mary Beth Lake is the Associate Director for Operations and the People and
Land (PAL) Coordinator for the Land Policy Institute at MSU. Ms. Lake has
a Master of Science degree in Applied Economics from the University of
Minnesota. In the past, she has served in the AmeriCorps program at the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and worked as an environmental
educator for the Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program. Ms. Lake has
conducted research and published work on a variety of agricultural topics,
including the implicit value of natural areas and farmland in the urban fringe
in St. Paul, Minnesota. She currently manages the Program’s fiduciary role
in the PAL Initiative, funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. She
coordinates the Michigan legislative information series, and assists in several
research and outreach programs through PAL.
Chuck McKeown
Chuck McKeown is Manager of Informatics at the Land Policy Institute.
He also coordinates the activities of Picture Michigan Tomorrow, a multidisciplinary
imagery and land use forecast modeling and outreach
initiative. He holds a Master of Science degree in Entomology from
Michigan State University, specializing in Ecology. He is also a veteran of
the U.S. Marine Corps.
iv

Max Fulkerson
As a Data and Informatics Analyst for LPI, Max Fulkerson uses Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), Remote Sensing, and spatial analysis to support
land use research. His current work includes a project in partnership with the
National Agricultural Statistics Service to generate an annual GIS layer of
crop specific land cover in Michigan and to educate stakeholders about the
potential applications of spatial data in agricultural research and practices.
His professional experience includes work in the public, private, and
academic sectors. Mr. Fulkerson holds a Master of Arts in Geography from
the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Laila Racevskis
Dr. Laila Racevskis is Assistant Professor of Food and Resource Economics
and Director of the Florida Natural Resources Leadership Institute at the
University of Florida. She previously served as Research Coordinator and
Assistant Professor at the Land Policy Institute, where she assisted in the
management of the environmental valuation project with Heart of the Lakes
Center for Land Conservation Policy. Her expertise is in non-market
valuation of ecosystem services, land use economics and policy, and human
dimensions of natural resource management. She holds a Ph.D. in
Agricultural Economics from Michigan State University.
Nigel Griswold
Nigel Griswold is a research associate in the Department of Agricultural
and Resource Economics at Colorado State University, focusing on the
valuation and economic impacts of natural resources and land use, tourism
and recreation. He holds an M.S. degree in Agricultural Economics from
Michigan State University. He previously worked with the Land Policy
Institute. In 2005, Mr. Griswold interned with the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s
Riverkeeper organization in Garrison, NY where he worked on the
estimation of tipping fees for the disposal of toxic wastes collected from
the Hudson River Superfund site.
v

Economic Valuation of Natural Resource Amenities:
A Hedonic Analysis of Hillsdale and Oakland Counties
Executive Summary
This study focuses on valuation of “green infrastructure” in Michigan. Green
infrastructure provides numerous services to the public, including quality of life benefits,
increasing the attractiveness of locations for growth, and influencing the value of
properties and hence local tax collections. To understand the value of green infrastructure
in Michigan, two case study counties are selected – Hillsdale and Oakland counties. In
Hillsdale County, the value of water amenities are considered; and in Oakland County,
the amenity values of waterways, water-bodies, recreational lands, and walkable and
bikeable green infrastructure such as trails, side walks, bike lanes, and park path–are
considered.
To materialize the goal of green infrastructure valuation, property sales transactions data
from both counties were collected. Additional spatial data on the location of green
infrastructure were also collected and analyzed. By developing a hedonic pricing model,
the influence of each considered green infrastructure on property values were isolated and
estimated.
Results indicate that, consistently, across the two counties and across green infrastructure
types, these assets contribute positively and significantly to property values. Specifically:
• In the case of water amenities in Hillsdale County, results indicate that, on
average, properties located within 15 meters, 16 to 75 meters and 76 to 150
meters from identified water amenities have 81.8 percent, 38.5 percent and 22.9
percent more value, respectively, compared to similar properties located at
distances more than 150 meters from water amenities.
• In the case of water amenity in Oakland County, the results suggest that
properties within 15 meters of water-bodies have a substantial capitalization of
these amenities into property values, compared with properties located at more
than 150 meters. The average “green-capitalization” attributable to water-bodies
within 15 meters is $55,082.
• In the case of recreational lands in Oakland County, results suggest that
recreational areas have significant impact on property values, ranging in impact
from 3.1 percent capitalization for properties within 15 meters, to 3.2 percent
gain for properties within 15 to 75 meters, 2.2 percent gain for properties within
75 to 150 meters and a 2.6 percent capitalization for properties within 150 to 300
meters, compared to properties located at more than 450 meters.
• In the case of walkability and bikeability enabling green infrastructure in
Oakland County, results indicate that the effect of these green infrastructure on
vi

property values were significant. Existence of these composite green assets
within 100 to 500 meters appreciates property values by 4.6 percent, or $11,785;
within 500 to 1000 meters results in “green-capitalization” of 2.3 percent; and
within 1000 to 1500 meters results in a gain of 6.3 percent, or $16,140, compared
to properties located at more than 1500 meters away from these outdoor
opportunities.
Obviously, based on the analysis of green infrastructure valuation in Hillsdale and
Oakland counties, people are “voting with their feet” and “voting with their wallets.”
That is people are willing to pay a higher premium for locations with high quality green
infrastructure. This is vital information for local officials, as they can pursue green
infrastructure strategies that are sustainable and add to the bottom-line. Local officials are
somewhat supportive of green assets, but this study suggests that they should be more
supportive for an economic reason, as it enhances ratables.
Green infrastructure investment also has broader implications. In the New Economy,
talent and innovation are sources of new local and regional economic growth. Talent
tends to migrate to places with significant green infrastructure. Jobs tend to follow
people, who follow green quality infrastructure. If this is true, then the findings of this
study suggest that green assets enhancement meets sustainability and enhances the
economy simultaneously. As part of a long-term strategy, green infrastructure (shown to
have significant economic value) can be leveraged to enhance local economic viability
and sustainability at the same time.
vii

Economic Valuation of Natural Resource Amenities:
A Hedonic Analysis of Hillsdale and Oakland Counties
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................1
2.0 Framework for Valuation of Natural Resource Amenities......................................3
3.0 The Study Areas: Hillsdale and Oakland Counties..................................................8
4.0 Hedonic Valuation Model............................................................................................9
5.0 Data Description and Characteristics ......................................................................11
6.0 Results: Valuation of Green Infrastructure ............................................................15
6.1 Valuation of Water Amenities – Hillsdale County............................................15
6.2 Valuation of Natural Amenities – Oakland County .........................................17
7.0 Conclusion and Implications.....................................................................................23
References.........................................................................................................................25
viii

Economic Valuation of Natural Resource Amenities:
A Hedonic Analysis of Hillsdale and Oakland Counties
List of Tables
Table 5.1 Description of Data Used for Hedonic Analysis ...........................................11
Table 5.2 Description of Data Used for Analysis ..........................................................12
Table 6.1.1 Estimated Values of Water Amenities - Hillsdale County .......................16
Table 6.1.2 The Effect of Water Amenities on Property Values –
Hillsdale County...........................................................................................17
Table 6.2.1 Estimated Values of Green Infrastructure – Oakland County................18
Table 6.2.2 The Effect of Water Amenities on Property Values –
Oakland County............................................................................................20
Table 6.2.3 The Effect of Recreational Amenities on Property Values –
Oakland County...........................................................................................20
Table 6.2.4 The Effect of Composite Outdoor Activity Allowing Green Assets
On Property Values – Oakland County.....................................................21
Table 6.2.5 The Effect of Waterways on Property Values –
Oakland County...........................................................................................21
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Lings between Green Infrastructure and Local Economic Vitality....3
Figure 2.2 Different Natural Resource Amenities ..........................................................4
Figure 2.3 Sources of Natural Resource Values..............................................................5
Figure 2.4 Hedonic Valuation of Green Infrastructure Services ..................................6
ix

1.0 Introduction
“Green infrastructure” 1 is increasingly becoming important attributes, providing
numerous quality of life and economic benefits to society. Green infrastructure services
from public lands, water bodies, forested lands, wetlands, and other forms of open space
were important drivers of recent trends in population density and wealth creation across
regions of the U.S. (Mieszowski and Mills 1993, Burchell and Shad 1998, Heimlich and
Anderson 2001). Increasingly, the location preference of new businesses and residents
has partly been tied to location amenity endowments and natural and environmental
services. The economic effects of high quality natural and environmental amenities
(green infrastructure services) have encouraged many to suggest intensified green
infrastructure as a potent economic growth strategy.
High quality natural and environmental amenities have also attracted increased housing
density change and commercial development, which have resulted in the conversion of
high natural amenities and land resources to development (Klein and Reganold 1997,
Daniels 1991). As a result, a number of states have initiated some form of natural
resource and land conservation initiatives to manage the increasing pressure on natural
and environmental resources (Nickerson and Hellerstein 2003). These initiatives illustrate
the importance of utilizing natural and environmental services and proper conservation
and protection requirements.
Michigan is endowed with a multitude of natural resources, some of which are among the
most distinct and abundant in the nation. These resources add to the quality of life and
economic vitality of many of the counties in the state. Michigan has 3,288 miles of Great
Lakes shoreline, 38,000 square miles of Great Lakes water, 11,000 inland lakes, 36,000
miles of rivers and streams, 75,000 acres of sand dunes, and 5.5 million acres of wetlands
(Nelson and Stynes 2003). Michigan also has a total of 19.3 million acres in forested
lands of which 38 percent are publicly owned (Hansen and Brand 2006). These resources
are significant sources of amenities benefits and economic impacts. However, there is
limited information about the economic value of these resources in general, and their
impact on local economies through such channels as property values and appreciation. 2
The proper economic valuation of green infrastructure services from public lands,
wetlands, forested lands, agricultural lands, and other forms of open space can provide
the information upon which timely natural resource utilization, management, and
conservation can be adapted. To bridge the information gap on the economic value of
natural resource amenities in Michigan, the Hannah Professor Research Program of the
Land Policy Institute is publishing this particular report as part of its Economic Impact
and Valuation Studies in Natural Resources and Conservation series. This report
1 Green infrastructure is defined as “the physical environment within and between cities, towns and
villages. It is a network of multi-functional open spaces, including parks, gardens, woodlands, green
corridors, waterways, street trees and open countryside.” (http://www.greeninfrastructure.eu/?section
=006.002&page=39).
2 To the extent to which high quality natural areas, such as water fronts, and trail increase property values, they also
increase property tax revenues which affect local public services.
1

constitutes the third report in this series. The previous two reports provided a political
economy analysis of state conservation spending gaps and an economic impact
assessment of Rifle River Recreational Area in Ogemaw County. This particular report
focuses on measuring the value of natural resource amenities in Hillsdale and Oakland
counties as case studies, to inform on the value of green infrastructure in Michigan.
This study aims to provide:
(1) Estimation of the value of selected natural resource amenities;
(2) Analysis of the links between these natural resource services and such variables as
property values and local economic performance;
(3) Analysis of the benefits that households receive from being located near different
natural resources through direct amenity benefits and indirect benefits–through
property value appreciation; and
(4) Policy discussion on the relevance of understanding the value of natural resource
services.
2

2.0 Framework for Valuation of Natural Resource Amenities
Understanding the economic value of local green infrastructure has a multitude of
benefits, including information support for: (1) local development planning based on
local resources; (2) local Smart Growth based land use planning; (3) understanding the
value of resources to prioritize for conservation; and (4) understanding property value,
and hence, property tax impacts of local green infrastructure and its connection thereof
with local economic vitality. In general, green infrastructure has broader impacts on local
economies. High quality locations attract population and employment growth as these
locations become desirable. High amenity areas also support the quality of life of local
residents and foster community attachment and heritage. Also, high quality areas have
substantial impacts on local property values that determine ability to finance local public
services. All these aspects of green infrastructure services impact the vitality of local
economies. Figure 2.1 summarizes these interconnections between green assets and the
local economy.
Figure 2.1 The Links between Green Infrastructure and Local Economic
Vitality
Communities are increasingly aware of the links between local green infrastructure and
economic performance. However, the value of natural resources has not been widely
estimated and properly understood for local decision making purposes. Valuation of
green infrastructure requires, first, clear understanding of what one means by value. For
instance, Figure 2.2 demonstrates different types of natural resource amenities, ranging
from waterfront properties to farmlands (open space). Each area depicted in these images
3

provides amenity benefits, but each resource has different uses. Therefore, when one
values these resources, what particular aspect, or nature, of the resource measured is
important to consider? Farmland has productive use in agriculture, but is also a source of
open space; forested land provides forest products, but also provides recreational
opportunities, such as hiking. Therefore, the elements of the resource characteristics
being measured are an important consideration in the valuation process.
Figure 2.2 Different Natural Resource Amenities
In general, there are different components of green infrastructure (natural resource)
values. Natural resources have use value, that is economic value related to direct
extraction or use: farming, logging, fishing, etc. In this case, the use value is direct in that
the resource has direct extractive or productive use values. The value of natural resources
can also be indirect, as they are useful in supporting the consumption of secondary
benefits, such as the flood control benefit of forest resources. Natural resources can also
have non-use value, in the sense that they can be valuable even if one may not be able to
directly utilize their services. This includes existence value, resources commanding value
for the reason that they exist (such as historic parks and other unique sites) and bequest
value, resources valued because they also have relevance for the next generation. Figure
2.3 summarizes the different aspects of green infrastructure values.
4

Figure 2.3 Sources of Natural Resource Values
This study aims to estimate the value of selected green infrastructure in Hillsdale and
Oakland counties, the value estimation is focused on the use value of natural amenities,
and will not include value estimation for potential non-use values. Estimation of non-use
values often involves extensive survey on the value people attach to non-use
characteristics of natural resources. Use values can be readily estimated from already
existing secondary data, even though the data requirement is often large. Since most
resource values are tied to use values, focus on this aspect of total valuation will provide
reliable measurements of natural resource values.
There are different methods to estimate the value of green infrastructure. One sound
method, based on observed market data, is the hedonic valuation model. Table 2.4
provides a thematic framework of a hedonic valuation methodology.
5

Figure 2.4 Hedonic Valuation of Green Infrastructure Services
- Number of rooms
- Square footage of
house
- Lot size
- Heating method
- Age of structure
- Distance from water bodies
- Distance from public lands
- Distance from forested lands
- Distance from farm lands
- Number of schools within a given
distance
- Number of students per teacher
- Crime rate in district
- Population density within a given
distance
- Closeness to employment centers
Housing
Structure
Closeness to
Natural Resources
Neighborhood
Characteristics
Impact on Measure
of House Values
Estimated Implicit Value of the Impact of
Closeness to Natural Resources
Can be extended to estimate the demand function for each natural resource in the
model to derive willingness to pay for marginal changes in closeness to the resources.
6

A hedonic valuation method enables one to estimate the value of green infrastructure
through observation of property value differences. The value of a typical house (property)
is determined by different factors, but particularly by housing structure and closeness to
natural amenities. Figure 2.4 summarizes the hedonic valuation framework and how
natural resource values can be estimated (segmented out) from property values.
Structural factors that affect property values include the number of rooms, lot size,
property square footage, floor space, garage square footage, etc. Closeness to high
amenity areas could include parks, trails, waterways, recreational lands, open space, etc.
Neighborhood characteristics could also have an impact on property values. Figure 2.4
summarizes a variety of factors that impact property values. A hedonic valuation method
allows for isolation of the impact of closeness to natural resource amenities on property
values. This estimated value is an indirect measure of the value of closeness to natural
resource services.
A hedonic valuation method is widely used to segment the part of housing values that is
attributable to the influence of natural amenities. Recent applications in decomposing the
share of environmental services in property values have proven effective (Pendleton and
Mendelsohn 1998, Faux and Perry 1999, Wilson and Carpenter 1999, Mohan, Polaski
and Adams 2000, Taylor and Smith 2000, Laggett and Bockstael 2000). The integration
of additional spatial data with housing characteristics, such as buffered measures of
natural features from each property, has also proven helpful in accurately estimating
natural resource values (Lake, et al. 2000).
Focusing on particular resources, hedonic valuation methodology has been applied to
measure the amenity value of water (Michael, et al. 2000; Leggett and Bockstael 2000),
the amenity value of wetlands (Mohan, et al. 2000), the environmental value of national
parks (Kluvankova 1998), the value of scenic view (Benson, et al. 1998), and the
economic value of freshwater ecosystems (Wilson and Carpenter 1999). In many of these
studies, natural amenities have a significant effect on property values, and following
hedonic valuation, the implicit value of each amenity is determined. For instance,
Benson, et al. show that scenic quality appreciates housing values by as much as 60
percent.
7

3.0 The Study Areas: Hillsdale and Oakland Counties
Two hedonic valuation case studies were conducted in Hillsdale and Oakland counties.
The Hillsdale study focused on the valuation of water-bodies (lakes, wetlands, etc.). This
analysis involved the estimation of the impact of distance from water-bodies on the value
of properties. The Oakland County study focused on the valuation of water-bodies, water
ways, recreational lands, and a specially constructed variable designed to capture access
to walkable and bikable infrastructure, such as trails, bike lanes, safety paths, and
sidewalks.
Hillsdale County is a rural, agrarian county with US Census
(2005) estimated population of 49,000. The county covers a
land area of 599 square miles. Per capita income in the
county is estimated at $20,361, with unemployment rate of
3.8 percent. Increasingly, the county attracts residential
development and second home development for residents of
nearby Toledo, Ohio. There are 18 townships and 3 cities in
Hillsdale County. The county’s high quality lakefront and
public lands provide environmental services and attract
development near these resources.
Oakland County is located in southeast Michigan. The
county has a total area of 908 square miles, of which 3.91
percent is water. The Census Bureau estimated (2005)
population of the county was 1,214,361, which is roughly
one-tenth of the population of Michigan. Oakland County is
part of the Detroit metropolitan area and constitutes 62
cities, villages, and townships. General Motors, Ford, and
Chrysler have significant investment in the county, though
the economy of Oakland County is relatively diverse.
According to Census figures, the median household income
for 2000 stood at $61,907, which compares favorably to the
U.S. median household income of $41,994 for the same
period.
8

4.0 Hedonic Valuation Model
A hedonic valuation model was used in both the Hillsdale and Oakland County analyses.
The only difference was in the implementation of the model: a focus on water related
amenities in Hillsdale; and a focus on a broader set of green infrastructure in Oakland
(waterways, water-bodies, recreational lands and infrastructure that allows walkability
and bikeability, i.e., trails, sidewalks, safety paths, and park walk-paths). Of course, given
the rural character of Hillsdale, it lacked data on some of the amenities accounted for in
Oakland County. In other words, the two case studies differ only in the structure of the
model implemented.
Figure 2.4 provides a thematic presentation of the hedonic valuation approach. In
practice, a hedonic model is an econometric approach that allows one to separately
estimate the values of green infrastructure. Hedonic models have different functional
specifications, ranging from linear to non-linear models. A more general hedonic
functional form, with flexible choices, involves the specification of a Box-Cox function
that can be modeled to provide both linear and non-linear functional forms. One general
specification of a hedonic model is one that transforms the dependent variable (housing
unit price) using a Box-Cox transformation, while keeping independent variables
(housing characteristics and closeness to natural amenities) linear. This model is specified
as:
( λ )
Y = f ( X )
where
⎪⎧
Y
⎨
⎪⎩ Y
( λ )
( λ )
= ( Y
( λ )
= log( Y )
−1) / λ
if
if
( λ)
≠ 0
( λ)
= 0.
⎫
⎬
⎭
(1)
Y refers to the dependent variable (housing unit price) and X refers to all independent
variables in the model that determine housing unit value, including housing
characteristics and proximity to natural amenities. This model transforms the dependent
variable using a Box-Cox transformation while the explanatory variables are all linear.
For the purpose of this study, a more general specification is used that transforms both
the dependent and independent variables using a Box-Cox transformation. Model testing
is conducted to identify particular models that fit the data well. The advantage of Box-
Cox specification is that it does not impose any theoretically restrictive parameters. It
allows for both linear and non-linear specification alternatives as special cases, but
selects other parameter values that will generate best estimation results. The generalized
Box-Cox specification can be given as:
y
( λ )
i
= β + ∑ β x + ∑κ
Z + ε
0
( φ )
i i
i
j
j
j
i
i ∈ (1,..., n)
and
j ∈ (1,..., n)
9

where
(
⎧y
⎪
(
⎪y
⎨ (
⎪xi
⎪ (
⎩xi
λ )
λ )
φ )
φ )
= ( y
= log( y)
= ( x
( λ )
( φ )
i
= log( x )
−1) / λ
−1) / φ
i
if ( λ)
≠ 0
if ( λ)
= 0
if ( φ)
≠0
if ( φ)
= 0.
⎫
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎪
⎭
(2)
The dependent variable (y i ) is the price of houses, which is transformed using Box-Cox
parameter (λ); (x i ) refers to all explanatory variables in the model, excluding dummy
variables, which are transformed using a Box-Cox parameter (ψ); and all dummy
variables are given by (Z j ). Even though it is customary to assign the Box-Cox parameters
a value of either 0 or 1, a maximum-likelihood function can be specified, and the Box-
Cox parameters will be determined through an optimization process. Equation (2) is
estimated through different alternative models using Box-Cox transformations. The
hedonic model following equation (2) allows for estimation of green infrastructure values
from property sales transactions data.
10

5.0 Data Description and Characteristics
To estimate the value of selected green infrastructure in Hillsdale and Oakland Counties
through the use of the hedonic model specified in equation (2), extensive data was
collected from the Assessor’s Office in each county. To make sure data used in the
analysis is based on market transactions of properties and based on full property
structural information, extensive data editing was undertaken to exclude transactions that
are not valid or are not based on free market transactions. Table 5.1 provides the
description of the data used in the analysis.
Table 5.1 Description of Data Used for Hedonic Analysis – Hillsdale County
BSMTDUMY
GRNDSQFT
NUMBATHR
Variable
Description
1 if there is a basement, 0 otherwise.
Square footage of ground floor.
Number of bathrooms.
QLTYRATE Quality rating of house by assessor (out of 100).
GRGESQFT
FLRSQFT1
AGE11
LOTACR12
SOLD2001
SOLD2002
SOLD2003
SOLD2004
SOLD2005
H2OW0-15
H2O15-75
Garage square footage.
Square footage of floor.
Age of house.
Lot size in acres.
1 if house is sold in 2001, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2002, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2003, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2004, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2005, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is located within 15 meters of water, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is located within 15 to 75 meters of water, 0 otherwise.
H2075-150 1 if house is located within 75 to 150 meters of water, 0 otherwise.
Now, let’s examine the data needed to conduct the hedonic analysis in Hillsdale County.
Housing sales data for the years 2000 to 2005 were collected, which was obtained from
the Assessor’s Office of Hillsdale County. The data was thoroughly checked for
consistency, and was appropriately corrected or excluded, and was limited to “armslength”
transactions. Only “arms-length” transactions were included, due to the fact that
they reflect market transactions. The housing sales transaction data includes information
on sale price of properties as well as housing characteristics.
Spatial data on the distance of sold properties from identified water amenities was
generated by the Hannah Professor Research Program of the Land Policy Institute and
was matched with the county property sales data to determine the impact of water
11

amenities on property values. The sample size (number of property sales transactions)
used in the final analysis was 2,504 property sales data. Table 5.1 provides both structural
information of sold properties between the years 2000 to 2005 and spatial information on
the distance of the sold properties from identified water features. Appropriate data
transformation is also undertaken to test alternative hedonic model specifications.
In the case of Oakland County, data comprises of two categories – housing structural
(and value) and spatial data on the closeness of properties to selected green infrastructure.
Descriptions of these data are provided in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Description of Data Used for Analysis – Oakland County
Variable
GRND_FL
TOTSQFT
BSMENT
GARAGE
BEDRMS
FULL-BATH
STYLBILE
STYLBUNG
STYLCAPC
STYLCOLO
STYLCNTM
STYLMOBI
STYLOTHR
STYLRNCH
STYLTRIL
STYLTUDR
STYLTWNH
STYLSNGL
YARD_IMPV
Square footage of ground floor.
Square footage of lot size.
1 if there is a basement, 0 otherwise.
Garage square footage.
Number of bedrooms.
Full bath.
Structural style is Bi-Level.
Structural style is Bungalow.
Structural style is Cape Cod.
Structural style is Colonial.
Structural style is Contemporary.
Structural style is Mobile.
Structural style is Other.
Structural style is Ranch.
Structural style is Tri-Level.
Structural style is Tudor.
Structural style is Townhouse/Duplex.
Structural style is Single Family.
Yard improvement value.
Sold2000 Property sold in 2000.
Sold2001 Property sold in 2001.
Sold2002 Property sold in 2002.
Sold2003 Property sold in 2003.
Description
12

Table 5.2 Description of Data Used for Analysis (Continued)
Sold2004 Property sold in 2004.
Sold2005 Property sold in 2005.
Sold2006 Property sold in 2006.
H20_1DMY
H20_2DMY
H2O_3DMY
H20_4DMY
REC_1DMY
REC_2DMY
REC_3DMY
REC_4DMY
REC_5DMY
REC_6DMY
OUTD_1DMY
OUTD_2DMY
OUTD_3DMY
OUTD_4DMY
OUTD_5DMY
WTRW_1DM
WTRW_2DM
WTRW_3DM
WTRW_4DM
AGE
SOLD2001
SOLD2002
SOLD2003
SOLD2004
SOLD2005
H2OW0-15
H2O15-75
Property located within 15 meters of water body.
Property located between 16 and 75 meters of water body.
Property located between 76 and 150 meters of water body.
Property located at greater than 150 meters from water body.
Property located within 15 meters of recreational land.
Property located between 16 and 75 meters of recreational land.
Property located between 76 and 150 meters of recreational land.
Property located between 151 and 300 meters of recreational land.
Property located between 301 and 450 meters of recreational land.
Property located at greater than 450 meters from recreational land.
Property located within 100 meters of outdoor activity allowing green assets.
Property located between 101 and 500 meters of outdoor activity allowing
green assets.
Property located between 501 and 1000 meters of outdoor activity allowing
green assets.
Property located between 1001 and 1500 meters of outdoor activity allowing
green assets.
Property located at greater than 1500 meters from outdoor activity allowing
green assets.
Property located within 15 meters of waterways.
Property located between 16 and 75 meters of waterways.
Property located between 76 and 150 meters of waterways.
Property located at greater than 150 meters from waterways.
Age of house.
1 if house is sold in 2001, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2002, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2003, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2004, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is sold in 2005, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is located within 15 meters of water, 0 otherwise.
1 if house is located within 15 to 75 meters of water, 0 otherwise.
H2075-150 1 if house is located within 75 to 150 meters of water, 0 otherwise.
13

First, housing sales value (price) and structural attributes data for the years 2000 to 2006
were provided by the Oakland County Tax Assessor’s Office. The data was thoroughly
checked for consistency, type of transaction, and duplication. Out of the original 121,073
data points collected, only 45,424 were used in the final hedonic valuation analysis. This
is due to data cleaning, refinements, utilization of only transactions with complete
information, avoidance of duplications, and limitation of data sample to “valid-sales”
transactions. The analysis benefits from having a relatively large sample size. Data
transformation was undertaken as needed to refine the quality of output from the model
and to test alternative models.
Second, spatial data was generated from Geographic Information System (GIS) layer files
provided by the Oakland County GIS Unit. Distance of sold properties from identified
natural amenities was measured from the GIS layers and reclassified into either four or
six categories of distance buffers. An index closer to one indicates the natural amenity is
closer to any given sold property, while an index four or six indicates the sold property is
located farther from the natural amenity property. This helps measure the impact of
natural amenity closeness or distance on property values, and hence natural amenity
implicit values.
14

6.0 Results: Valuation of Green Infrastructure
The valuation of green infrastructure in each county is provided below. In Hillsdale
County, the value of water amenities is estimated. In Oakland County, a number of
different natural amenities are valued, as previously mentioned in Section 5.0.
6.1 Valuation of Water Amenities – Hillsdale County
In estimating the hedonic model for Hillsdale County, three sets of factors that determine
property values were considered. First, physical characteristics of sold properties, such as
total square footage, existence of basement, number of bedrooms, etc, are included.
Second, trend variables are included to capture the tendency of property values to
appreciate over time (captured by including information on when the property is sold).
Third, to measure the value of water amenities in Hillsdale County, distance of sold
properties are measured from identified water-bodies. The analysis conducted a
comparison of property values for properties located within 15 meters, between 16 to 75
meters, and between 76 to 150 meters against those properties that are located at greater
than 150 meters from water-bodies. The data used in the analysis is reported in Table 5.1.
Three separate models were also analyzed to provide the best estimates for the value of
water amenities in Hillsdale County. A double-log model (Model 3) performs better in
explaining patterns in the data, and is used in the final analysis. Table 6.1.1 summarizes
the estimated results by category, i.e., physical characteristics of property, market trends,
and environmental factors.
First, the impact of physical characteristics of property on property values in Hillsdale
County is considered. The results indicate that the existence of a basement, a one percent
increase in ground square footage, a one percent increase in quality rating, a one percent
increase in garage square footage, and a one percent increase in floor square footage are
expected to increase average property values by 0.23 percent, 0.03 percent, 1.2 percent,
0.03 percent, and 0.45 percent, respectively. As expected, the results suggest that
structural factors of properties do have influence on the property value.
Second, consider the impact of market trends on property values in Hillsdale County. The
results indicate that, on average, properties sold in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 had
higher market values by a 4.9 percent, 10.4 percent, 15.5 percent, 17 percent, and 20.9
percent, respectively, compared to average values in 2000. This shows a significant
appreciation in average property values due to market conditions.
15

Table 6.1.1 Estimated Values of Water Amenities – Hillsdale County
Variables Linear Model (Model 1) Semi-log Model (Model 2) Double-log Model (Model 3)
Coef. Prob. Elasticity Coef. Prob. Elasticity Coef. Prob. Elasticity
Value
Value
Value
Physical Characteristics of Property
BSMTDUMY 20,854 0.000 0.150 18,545 0.000 0.110 0 .231 0.001 0.165
GRNDSQFT 2.757 0.567 0.032 -17,077 0.323 -0.142 0.162 0.033 0.162
NUMBATHR 16,281.4 0.000 0.241 50,253 0.000 0.418 0.056 0.238 0.056
QLTYRATE 581.522 0.054 0.428 8,675.55 0.165 0.072 1.209 0.000 1.209
GRGESQFT 25.290 0.162 0.091 3,241.89 0.001 0.027 0.026 0.000 0.027
FLRSQFT1 22.115 0.232 0.312 13,898.1 0.336 0.116 0 .447 0.000 0.447
AGE11 25.494 0.624 0.013 633.08 0.683 0.005 0.305 0.000 0.305
LOTACR12 100.897 0.116 0.026 5,969.72 0.012 0.049 0.003 0.801 0.003
Market Trends
SOLD2001 1,808.8 0.632 0.003 539.468 0.889 0.001 0.049 0.335 0.008
SOLD2002 5,176.77 0.169 0.010 4,230.66 0.251 0.007 0.104 0.046 0.020
SOLD2003 9,448.65 0.024 0.020 8,157.52 0.024 0.014 0.155 0.006 0.033
SOLD2004 12,226.6 0.007 0.027 9,941.35 0.006 0.018 0.170 0.004 0.038
SOLD2005 20,156.4 0.004 0.012 19,367.4 0.000 0.009 0.209 0.009 0.012
Environmental Factors
H2OW0-15 20,854.4 0.000 0.177 93,055.8 0.000 0.149 0.819 0.000 0.158
H2O15-75 91,273.5 0.000 0.032 34,464.9 0.000 0.028 0.385 0.000 0.034
H2075-150 35,418.5 0.000 0.016 18,281.9 0.000 0.014 0.229 0.001 0.021
Sigma-sq. 2711936 0.041 - 2880531 0.000 - 0.463 0.009 -
Θ - 1 0
Λ - 0 0
-Log-lik. 30,735 30,810.826 31,540
Third, the impact of water amenities on property values is considered. The results
indicate that on average, properties located within 15 meters, 16 to 75 meters, and 76 to
150 meters from identified water amenities have 81.8 percent, 38.5 percent, and 22.9
percent more value, respectively, compared to similar properties located at distances
more than 150 meters from water amenities. Table 6.1.2 summarizes the estimated
property value appreciation as a result of closeness to water amenities.
In dollars, this would mean that, on average, properties located within 75 to 150 meters
from water sources have $22,760.05 more value compared to similar houses located at
more than 150 meters from water amenities. Similarly, houses located at 15 to 75 meters
from water amenities have $38,264.72 more value than similar houses located at more
than a 150 meter distance. Finally, houses located adjacent to water amenities within a 15
meter distance have $81,399.50 more premium value compared to similar houses located
at the 150 meter distance from these water amenities. Since these estimated values are
independent of the structural and market trend effects on property values, they are
indirect measures of the value of water amenities in Hillsdale County.
16

Table 6.1.2 The Effect of Water Amenities on Property Values –
Hillsdale County
Location of house from Water Percentage gain in Amount gained in
Amenities
property value property value
Within 15 meters + 81.9% + $81,399.50
15 to 75 meters + 38.5% + $38,264.72
75 to 150 meters + 22.9% + 22,760.05
Base comparison: > 150 meters Base Base
The predictable decline in value as one moves away from water amenities indicates that
these amenities clearly have a significant impact on property values, and hence local tax
income. The estimated values of housing premiums due to amenities are for an average
house. Adding these benefits (property value gain from closeness to water amenities)
across many houses in Hillsdale can give a clear image of the magnitude of social
benefits derived from water amenities.
The results have further implications: the appreciation of housing values due to closeness
to natural amenities indicates the value that people attach to the environmental benefits of
natural resources. To the extent that the environmental services of water amenities
influence property values, they will have indirect effects on local tax revenues through
the effect on property values.
6.2 Valuation of Natural Amenities – Oakland County
In estimating the hedonic model for Oakland County, similarly, three sets of factors that
determine property values were considered. First, physical characteristics of sold
properties, capturing such factors as total square footage, existence of basement, number
of bedrooms, style of property, etc, are included. Second, trend variables are included to
capture property values appreciation (or depreciation) over time by including property
“year sold” data. Third, selected green infrastructure, such as waterways, water-bodies,
recreational lands, and neighborhood walkability and bikeability access attributes
(captured by trails, park walk path, safety path, and sidewalks) are included. The analysis
conducted comparison of property value differences on the basis of distance (closeness)
from the identified green infrastructure. The data used in the analysis and the distance
categories from each selected green infrastructure is reported in Table 5.2 and the
estimated results are provided in Table 6.2.1.
17

Table 6.2.1 Estimated Values of Green Infrastructure – Oakland County
Variables
Linear Model
(Model 1)
Double-Log Model
(Model 2)
Coef. t-statistic Coef. t-statistic
Physical Characteristics of Property
GRND_FL 19.352 5.417 0.093 6.839
TOTSQFT 154.665 55.855 0.665 46.715
BSMENT 22335.5 10.565 0.021 26.962
GARAGE 12791.6 5.777 0.032 33.125
BEDRMS -5808.84 -6.071 0.009 3.449
FULL-BATH 30507.59 21.101 0.086 23.929
YARD_IMPV 3.265 27.286 10 -5 x4 13.614
STYLBILE -25996.43 -3.696 -0.065 -3.561
STYLBUNG 31477.20 12.291 0.058 8.364
STYLCAPC 20101.80 2.564 0.083 4.105
STYLCOLO -28529.67 -11.167 -0.006 -0.913
STYLCNTM 3551.13 0.742 0.101 8.189
STYLMOBI -62368.42 -2.646 -0.523 -8.585
STYLOTHR -12033.04 -3.047 0.003 0.301
STYLRNCH 26327.84 9.935 0.061 8.480
STYLTRIL -22119.78 -4.675 -0.052 -4.275
STYLTUDR 79642.97 7.639 0.184 6.853
STYLTWNH -38613.92 -2.001 -0.194 -3.885
Market Trends
Sold2001 35999.46 5.769 0.061 3.796
Sold2002 20276.21 4.240 0.057 4.650
Sold2003 29839.62 6.272 0.098 7.990
Sold2004 4697.95 8.500 0.129 10.700
Sold2005 50059.58 10.638 0.152 12.507
Sold2006 43752.14 9.199 0.111 9.032
Environmental Factors
Water Amenities
H20_1DMY 67690.33 23.872 0.215 29.356
H2O_2DMY -6733.81 -2.533 -0.007 0.298
H2O_3DMY -13518.17 -6.199 -0.023 -4.143
Recreational Land Amenities
REC_1DMY 11014.84 2.887 0.031 3.126
REC_2DMY 21091.97 8.181 0.031 4.706
REC_3DMY 16283.03 6.723 0.022 3.558
REC_4DMY 17720.45 8.632 0.026 4.993
REC_5DMY 11020.15 4.933 0.006 1.023
Trail Amenities
TRL_1DMY 5494.85 1.709 -0.006 -0.745
TRL_2DMY 20523.39 6.545 0.046 5.680
TRL_3DMY 21780.71 6.285 0.023 2.548
TRL_4DMY 29102.75 7.181 0.063 6.055
Waterways Amenities
WTRW_1DM 1000.14 0.800 0.019 1.883
WTRW_2DM -1407.72 0.672 0.013 1.481
WTRW_3DM -3515.77 0.185 0.022 3.198
Intercept -150458.3 -24.070 6.051 111.28
Θ - 0
Λ - 0
-Log-lik. -624,693.17 -21,317.04
R 2 0.56 0.57
18

In the case of Oakland County, several specifications were estimated, and the appropriate
model specification was selected based on results from the log-likelihood test, Akaike
Criterion, and significance levels. The double-log specification (Model 2) was chosen
over the linear specification. Table 6.2.1 summarizes the estimated results by category,
i.e., physical characteristics of property, market trends, and environmental factors.
First, consider the impact of property physical attributes on property values in Oakland
County. As expected, the results suggest that a one percent increase in ground floor
square footage (GRND_FL), total square footage (TOTSQFT), basement square footage
(BSMENT), and garage square footage (GARAGE) increase property values by 0.09
percent, 0.66 percent, 0.02 percent, and 0.03 percent, respectively. Similarly, additional
bedrooms (BEDRMS) fetch a 0.9 percent gain in property values, full bath
(FULL_BATH) brings 8.6 percent gain, and yard improvement (YARD_IMPV) adds a
slight increase in property value. The style of building also matters. Holding single
family home style as a base comparison, BiLevel, BUNG, CAPC, COLO, CNTM, MOBI,
OTHR, RNCH, TRIL, TUDR, and TWNH styles differ in comparative value by -6.5
percent, 5.8 percent, 8.3 percent, -0.06 percent, 10.1 percent, -52.3 percent, 0.03 percent,
6.1 percent, -5.2 percent, 18.4 percent, and -19.4 percent, respectively.
Second, consider the effect of market trends on property values in Oakland County. The
results suggest that holding average property values in the year 2000 as a base
comparison, average property values appreciated by 6.1 percent in 2001, 5.7 percent in
2002, 9.8 percent in 2003, 12.9 percent in 2004, 15.2 percent in 2005, and 11.1 percent in
2006. These indicate the market trend effect on property values.
Third, consider the property value impacts of the four identified natural resource
amenities in Oakland County – water-bodies, recreational lands, neighborhood
walkability and bikeability green infrastructure, and waterways. Let’s consider each
green infrastructure separately.
Water-Bodies: Table 6.2.2 summarizes the effect of the presence of or proximity to
water-bodies on property values by distance and by degree of effect in Oakland County.
Properties were classified by their distance from water-bodies within 15 meters, 16 to 75
meters, 76 to 150 meters, and beyond 150 meters. The results suggest that properties that
lie within 15 meters of water-bodies have a substantial capitalization of these amenities
into property values, compared to properties located at more than 150 meters. The
average “green-capitalization” attributable to water-bodies within 15 meters is $55,082.
This substantial gain in property value signals the implicit value of water amenities to
Oakland County residents. Beyond the 15 meter buffer, however, water-body amenities
have a rapidly diminishing impact on property values. This could be perhaps due to the
scenic value associated with these amenities, which diminishes as the scenic quality
declines. The results suggest that water amenities have substantial value that can be
capitalized into property values, but they have a high sensitivity to distance and scenic
quality.
19

Table 6.2.2 The Effect of Water Amenities on Property Values –
Oakland County
Location of house from Percentage gain in Amount gained in
Water Amenities
property value property value
Within 15 meters + 21.5% +$55,081.71
15 to 75 meters Insignificant -
75 to 150 meters -2.3% -$5,892.46
Base comparison: > 150 meters Base Base
Recreational Lands: Table 6.2.3 summarizes the effect of proximity to recreational lands
on property values by distance and by degree of effect in Oakland County. Properties
were classified based on distance from identified recreational lands following the
distance categories of 15 meters, 16 to 75 meters, 76 to 150 meters, 151 to 300 meters,
301 to 450 meters, and beyond 450 meters. The results suggest that recreational areas
have significant impact on property values, ranging in impact from 3.1 percent
capitalization for properties within 15 meters, to 3.2 percent gain for properties within 15
to 75 meters, 2.2 percent gain for properties within 75 to 150 meters, and a 2.6 percent
capitalization for properties within 150 to 300 meters, compared to properties located at
more than 450 meters. The results soundly conclude that recreational lands have
significant value, more so the closer one gets to these resources. Recreational areas are
part of quality of life, and their significant positive value per house measures their
implicit market value to Oakland County residents.
Table 6.2.3 The Effect of Recreational Amenities on Property Values –
Oakland County
Location of house from Percentage gain in Amount gained in
Recreational Land
property value property value
Within 15 meters +3.1% +$7,942.01
15 to 75 meters +3.2% +$8,198.21
75 to 150 meters +2.2% +$5,636.27
150 to 300 meters +2.6% +$6,661.04
300 to 450 meters Insignificant -
Base comparison: > 450 meters Base Base
Walkability and Bikeability Allowing Green Infrastructure: Table 6.2.4 summarizes the
effect of walkability and bikeability allowing green infrastructure on property values in
Oakland County. Green assets in this category are sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, park
paths, and safety paths. Properties were classified by their distance from the green
infrastructure at within 100 meters, 101 to 500 meters, 501 to 1000 meters, 1001 to 1500
20

meters, and beyond 1500 meters. Results indicate that the effect of these green
infrastructure on property values were significant, but not within 100 meters. Existence of
these composite green assets within 100 to 500 meters appreciates property values by 4.6
percent, or $11,785, within 500 to 1000 meters results in “green-capitalization” of 2.3
percent, and within 1000 to 1500 meters results in a gain of 6.3 percent or $16,140,
compared to properties located at more than 1500 meters away from these outdoor
opportunities. The insignificant result for much closer proximity could be perhaps due to
the congestion and disutility of having people walk and exercise at closer proximity to
one’s property. However, once these green assets are close enough to bring amenity, yet
far enough to reduce the impact of congestion, they command substantial value.
Table 6.2.4 The Effect of Composite Outdoor Activity Allowing Green
Assets on Property Values – Oakland County
Location of house from Percentage gain in Amount gained in
Composite Green Assets property value property value
Within 100 meters Insignificant -
100 to 500 meters +4.6% +$11,784.92
500 to 1000 meters +2.3% +$5,892.46
1000 to 1500 meters +6.3% +$16,140.22
Base comparison: > 1500 meters Base Base
Waterways: Table 6.2.5 summarizes the effect of proximity to waterways on property
values in Oakland County. Properties were classified based on their distance from
waterways at 15 meters, 16 to 75 meters, 76 to 150 meters, and beyond 150 meters.
Results suggest that waterways tend to have a marginal positive impact on property
value, estimated at a “green-capitalization” of 1.9 percent for properties within 15 meters
and 2.2 percent for houses within 75 to 150 meters, compared to properties located at
more than 150 meters. The estimated implicit value for waterways is smaller, yet
positive. Waterways do have non-market value, and residents put a premium on such
locations.
Table 6.2.5 The Effect of Waterways on Property Values – Oakland County
Location of house from Percentage gain in Amount gained in
Waterway Amenities
property value property value
Within 15 meters +1.9% +$4,867.69
15 to 75 meters Insignificant -
75 to 150 meters +2.2% +$5,636.27
Base comparison: > 150 meters Base Base
21

In summary, the results clearly indicate that green infrastructure commands significant
value, as estimated in the case of Hillsdale and Oakland Counties. Natural resources also
have significant impacts on local economies through property values and quality of life.
The appreciation of housing value due to closeness to natural amenities indicates the
value people attach to the environmental benefits of natural resources, and their
willingness to “vote through their foot” and to “vote through their wallet.” The results
also suggest that, to the extent that the environmental services of natural resources
influence property values, they will have indirect effects on local tax revenues through
their effects on property values.
22

7.0 Conclusion and Implications
This report presents the findings of a study designed to document the impacts of natural
resources (green infrastructure) on property values and therefore on local tax revenues.
Applications of the hedonic valuation technique to Oakland and Hillsdale Counties
suggest that green infrastructure, or natural resources, have significant amenity values
that translate into higher property values. Our approach isolates the value of green
infrastructure attributes such that the impact of green infrastructure in enhancing property
value is estimated. With every single attribute measured, the results support the positive
economic value and impact of green infrastructure.
In the case of water amenities in Hillsdale County, it was found that properties located
within 15 meters reflected an 81.9 percent gain property value (or $81,399.50), properties
located within 15 to 75 meters gained 38.5 percent in property values (or $38,264.72),
and properties located within 75 to 150 meters gained 22.9 percent in value (or
$22,760.05). The enhancements in property values are quite significant, given average
property values from property sales transaction data is around $100,000. The difference
in property value at different distance from water amenities shows people are “voting
with their foot” and with their “wallet” in support of green infrastructure.
This study also conducted valuation analysis of waterways, water-bodies, recreational
lands, and walkability and bikeability allowing green infrastructure in Oakland County.
In the case of water amenities, it was found that properties located within 15 meters
gained 21.5 percent in value (or $55,081.71) compared to properties located beyond 150
meters from water amenities. In the case of recreational lands, properties within 15
meters gained 3.1 percent in property value (or $7,942.01), properties within 15 to 75
meters gained 3.2 percent in value (or $8,198.21), properties within 75 to 150 meters
gained 2.2 percent in value (or $5,636.27), and properties within 150 to 300 meters
gained 2.6 percent in value (or $6,661.04). In the case of walkability and bikeability
allowing green infrastructure (such as trails, bike lanes, side walks, and park path),
properties located within 100 to 500 meters gained 4.6 percent in property value (or
$11,784.92), properties located within 500 to 1000 meters gained 2.3 percent in value (or
$5,892.46), and properties located 1000 to 1500 meters gained 6.3 percent (or
$16,140.22) compared to properties located beyond 1500 meters. Finally, in the case of
waterways, it was found that properties located within 15 meters of waterways gained 1.9
percent in property values (or $4,867.69) and properties located within 75 to 150 meters
gained 2.2 percent in value (or $5,636.27), compared to properties located beyond 150
meters of waterways. Given the average property value from property sales transaction
data of $275,000, the gains in property values as a result of proximity to green
infrastructure are significant in economic value and impact.
The results from both Hillsdale and Oakland Counties consistently show that, when it
comes to green infrastructure, people are “voting with their feet” and “voting with their
wallets.” The positive findings for green infrastructure should be good news for local
officials, since their ratables increase with amenities. Local officials are somewhat
23

supportive of green assets; however, this study suggests that they should be more
supportive for an economic reason, as it enhances ratables.
The study results have numerous implications:
(1) Natural amenities do matter, have significant value, and have a bearing on local
property values. Therefore, efforts to protect such resources are sensible responses
to protecting value.
(2) Natural amenities have substantial effect on local property values, from which
some local public services are provided. To the extent that property taxes are
relevant to local government units, understanding the important links provided in
this study between local economies and natural resources is crucial.
(3) Natural amenities are different in value as implicitly measured in the market
place; as such, estimated green infrastructure values can provide the guide as to
which resources are highly valued by local residents for conservation purposes,
especially in the face of limited conservation funding.
(4) Given the fact that green infrastructure affects property ratables, local decision
makers can enhance long-term financial viability of their communities through
green infrastructure based strategies.
Green infrastructure investment also has broader implications. In the New Economy,
talent and innovation are sources of new local and regional economic growth. Talent
tends to migrate to places with significant green infrastructure; jobs tend to follow
people, who follow green infrastructure quality. If this is the case, then the findings of
this study suggest that green assets enhancement meets the goals of environmental and
economic sustainability. As part of a long-term strategy, green infrastructure (shown to
have significant economic value) can be leveraged to enhance local economic viability
and sustainability at the same time.
24

References
Benson, E.D., J.L. Hansen, A.L. Schwartz, Jr., and G.T. Smersh. 1998. “Pricing
Residential Amenities: The Value of a View.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and
Economics 16(1): 55-73.
Burchell, R.W., and N.A. Shad. 1998. “The Costs of Sprawl – Revisited.” Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Daniels, T.L. 1991. “The Purchase of Development Rights: Preserving Agricultural Land
and Open Space.” Journal of the American Planning Association 57(4): 421-431.
Faux, J., and G. M. Perry. 1999. “Estimating Irrigation Water Value Using Hedonic Price
Analysis: A Case Study in Malheur County, Oregon.” Land Economics 75 (3):
440-452.
Hansen, M.H. and G.J. Brand. 2006. “Michigan’s Forest Resources in 2004.” USDA
Forest Service – North Central Research Station.
Heimlich, R.E., and W.D. Anderson. 2001. “Development at the Urban Fringe and
Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land.” Agricultural Economic Report
No. 803, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Klein, L.R., and J.P. Reganold. 1997. “Agricultural Changes and Farmland Protection in
Western Washington.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 52(1): 6-12.
Kluvankova, T. 1998. "Valuation of National Parks in Transitional Economies."
Ekonomicky Casopis, 46 (5), 671-694.
Laggett, C. G., and N. E. Bockstael. 2000. “Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on
Residential Land Prices.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
39: 121-144.
Lake, I.R., A.A. Lovett, I.J. Bateman, and B. Day. 2000. "Using GIS and Large-Scale
Digital Data to Implement Hedonic Pricing Studies." International Journal of
Geographical Information Science 14(6), 521-541.
Mahan, B. L., S. Polasky, and R.M. Adams. 2000. “Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property
Price Approach.” Land Economics 76(1): 100-113.
Michael, H. J., K. J. Boyle, and R. Bouchard. 2000. "Does the Measurement of
Environmental Quality Affect Implicit Prices Estimated From Hedonic Models?"
Land Economics, 76 (2), 283-298.
25

Mieszkowski, P., and E.S. Mills. 1993. “The Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization.”
The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(3): 135-147.
Nelson, C. and D. Stynes. 2003. “2003-2007 Michigan Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan.” Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Nickerson, C.J., and D. Hellerstein. 2003. “Protecting Rural Amenities Through
Farmland Preservation Programs.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
32(1): 129-144.
Pendleton, L. H., and R. Mendelsohn. 1998. “Estimating the Economic Impact of Climate
Change on the Freshwater Sports Fisheries of the Northeastern US.” Land
Economics 74 (4): 483-496.
Taylor, L. O., and V. K. Smith. 2000. “Environmental Amenities as a Source of Market
Power.” Land Economics 76 (4): 550-568.
Wilson, M. A., and S. R. Carpenter. 1999. “Economic Valuation of Freshwater
Ecosystem Services in the United States: 1971-1997.” Ecological Applications 9
(3): 772-783.
26

Economic Impact of
Oakland County’s Water Resources
February 13, 2009
Prepared for
Oakland County Planning & Economic Services Division
Waterford, Michigan
www.oakgov.com/peds
Prepared by
Public Sector Consultants Inc.
Lansing, Michigan
www.pscinc.com

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1
RECREATION .............................................................................................................................................. 1
TOURISM .................................................................................................................................................... 2
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 2
BUSINESS LOCATION AND RETENTION ....................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4
STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS ................................................................................................................ 5
OAKLAND COUNTY’S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER RESOURCES................................................ 6
KEY FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................... 10
Recreation........................................................................................................................................... 10
Tourism ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................................. 11
Business Location and Retention ........................................................................................................ 11
HOUSEHOLD RECREATION SURVEY ............................................................................................... 13
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 13
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................ 13
Survey Instrument Development ......................................................................................................... 14
Sample Selection ................................................................................................................................. 14
KEY FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................... 15
OAKLAND COUNTY’S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 16
USE OF RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 17
WATER-BASED RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY............................................................................................... 24
THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WATER-BASED RECREATION............................................................................ 26
Values for Wildlife Viewing ................................................................................................................ 28
Values for Beach Use and Swimming ................................................................................................. 29
Values for Power Boating................................................................................................................... 29
Values for Canoeing, Kayaking, or Sailing ........................................................................................ 30
Values for Fishing............................................................................................................................... 30
CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 31
THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WATER-BASED TOURISM IN OAKLAND COUNTY,
MICHIGAN ................................................................................................................................................ 32
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 32
ESTIMATING TOURISM ACTIVITY IN OAKLAND COUNTY.......................................................................... 33
PURPOSE OF VISITS................................................................................................................................... 38
TOURIST ACTIVITIES IN OAKLAND COUNTY............................................................................................. 39
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 43
THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH OAKLAND COUNTY’S
WATER RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................. 44
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 44
KEY FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................... 44
FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 45
ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY OAKLAND COUNTY’S WATER
RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................................. 48
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 51
OAKLAND COUNTY BUSINESS LOCATION AND EMPLOYEE ATTRACTION/
RETENTION SURVEY............................................................................................................................. 52
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 52

The New Economy and Quality of Life Amenity ................................................................................. 52
Existing Literature Review.................................................................................................................. 53
Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey........................................................... 53
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................ 53
KEY FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................... 54
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS ....................................................................................................... 54
FACTORS AFFECTING LOCATION DECISIONS AND EMPLOYEE ATTRACTION AND RETENTION.................. 56
Importance of Quality-of-Life Factors in Firms’ Location Decisions ................................................ 58
Importance of Quality-of-Life Factors in Attraction and Retention of Employees ............................. 61
Awareness of Oakland County Amenities ...........................................................................................63
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 64
REFERENCE LIST ................................................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX A: HOUSEHOLD RECREATION SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND RESULTS ................ 71
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 71
QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................................................... 71
DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................................................................................... 74
OAKLAND COUNTY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS CODE SHEET................................................................. 76
QUESTION 6, FREE RESPONSES................................................................................................................. 77
APPENDIX B: OAKLAND COUNTY BUSINESSES LOCATION AND EMPLOYEE
ATTRACTION/RETENTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND RESULTS ............................................. 87
E-MAIL INVITATION TEXT ........................................................................................................................ 87
Initial E-mail Invitation ...................................................................................................................... 87
First Reminder E-mail ........................................................................................................................ 87
Second Reminder E-mail..................................................................................................................... 88
QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................................................... 88
QUESTION 5, FREE RESPONSES TO “OTHER” SECTOR ............................................................................... 93
QUESTION 11, FREE RESPONSES TO “OTHER” SECTOR.............................................................................. 94
QUESTION 15, FREE RESPONSES TO “OTHER” SECTOR.............................................................................. 99

Executive Summary
Oakland County, Michigan, boasts an extensive green infrastructure network and diverse
natural environment that contributes substantially to residents’ quality of life. It is also
Michigan’s most densely populated county and leads the state in terms of economic
prosperity. As Oakland County grows and pursues its economic development objectives,
its natural resources are under increasing pressure. To better understand the impact of
Oakland’s green infrastructure assets on the local economy, the county retained the
services of Public Sector Consultants to prepare an analysis of the economic value of
Oakland’s green infrastructure assets. This study documents, and quantifies where
possible, how green infrastructure (water resources in particular) benefit Oakland
County’s residents and businesses. Key findings of the research include the following:
RECREATION
• Oakland County residents attribute substantial value to the county’s green
infrastructure and water resources. The value derives in part from direct use. About
40 percent of county residents use the county’s recreational resources at least once
per week. Green infrastructure resources contribute substantially to residents’ quality
of life. In general, however, the contribution of green infrastructure is considered less
important to quality of life than community characteristics such as high-quality
schools or low crime rates.
• County residents visit water recreation sites primarily for general recreation (walking,
running, biking, picnicking, relaxing, etc.). Watching wildlife is the next most
frequent activity, followed by swimming or using a beach. Fewer residents engage in
power boating, canoeing, fishing, and hunting.
• Among residents who use local recreational resources, more visit parks (80 percent)
than any other recreational resource. About 60 percent to 65 percent visit trails, public
lakes, and rivers and streams. Fewer people visit undeveloped woods and fields (54
percent), private lakes (45 percent), and wetlands (43 percent).
• When accounting for the frequency of visits, however, residents make the most visits
to wetlands (an average of 29 visits per year per household). Residents visit rivers and
streams an average of 26 times per year, private lakes an average of 25 times per year,
parks an average of 23 times per year, trails and public lakes an average of 22 times
per year, and undeveloped woods and fields an average of 18 times per year. 1
• Considering only aspects of green infrastructure, county residents rate general
characteristics such as the quality of the natural environment and scenic beauty as
more important than specific components like trails, pathways, and water resources.
This finding suggests that county residents value green infrastructure at least as much
for reasons not related to recreational use as for direct use.
• Five primary recreational activities dependent on Oakland County’s water resources
generate an estimated $200 million in annual recreational benefits to county residents,
1 Variations in average visitation rates between parks, trails, and undeveloped woods and fields and
between wetlands and rivers are not statistically different. All other differences are significant at a level of
at least 90 percent.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 1

even based on seemingly conservative estimates of day use values. Two categories of
activity, beach visits/swimming, and canoeing/kayaking/sailing, generate over half of
the total value.
TOURISM
• Oakland County attracted an estimated 394,514 pleasure trips from Michigan,
neighboring states, and the province of Ontario during 2007. About 1.3 million
people visited Oakland County on these trips and spent an average of 3.5 days in the
county.
• While recreation is rarely the primary purpose of pleasure trips to Oakland County,
recreational activities figure prominently in visitors’ activities while in the county.
More than 40 percent of visitors (accounting for approximately 161,000 pleasure
trips) engaged in some outdoor activity in Oakland County, and 20 percent
(accounting for approximately 78,000 pleasure trips) engaged in activities that
directly depended on water resources.
• Even though a substantial number of tourists engage in water-based recreation while
they are in Oakland County, this type of recreation is rarely the primary purpose of
their trips.
• Available tourism data do not provide the activity-specific spending information
necessary to estimate the direct impact of water-based recreation; however, the fact
that in 2007 an estimated 78,000 pleasure trip visits to Oakland County involved
water-based recreation suggests that the economic impact of the county’s water
resources is not trivial.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
• Oakland County’s substantial and varied freshwater resources likely produce
substantial ecosystem services. Many of these services accrue primarily to Oakland
County residents and other residents of the five watersheds of which Oakland County
is the source.
• Oakland County’s water resources produce an estimated $806 million in ecosystem
services annually, $167 million attributable to 34,600 acres of lakes and ponds and
$639 million stemming from 56,400 acres of wetlands.
• Three services (disturbance regulation values associated with wetlands, water supply
values of wetlands, and water regulation values of lakes and rivers) account for
almost three-quarters of the total value of freshwater ecosystem services in the
county.
BUSINESS LOCATION AND RETENTION
• A substantial proportion of firms felt that access to parks, trails, and paths (34
percent); access to water-based recreation (23 percent); and proximity to natural areas
(18 percent) were at least of moderate importance in their decision to locate in
Oakland County.
• Similarly, green infrastructure affected many firms’ perceived ability to attract and
retain a high-quality workforce. More than half (59 percent) said that access to parks,
2
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

trails, and paths influenced recruiting and retention; 54 percent said that access to
water-based recreation was at least moderately important in recruiting; and 49 percent
said the same of proximity to natural areas.
• Although green infrastructure factors were important to many firms, even more firms
ranked business-oriented factors (proximity to customers, labor and costs, access to
transportation, and government support) and community factors (quality of schools,
safety, housing costs) as important factors for business location decision-making.
• While New Economy firms (such as financial, health, information, and professional
services) and smaller firms (fewer than 20 employees) also ranked business-oriented
and community factors as more important than green infrastructure to location
decisions and recruiting, they placed a greater importance on many green
infrastructure factors than did other types of firms.
In summary, the research found that Oakland County’s green infrastructure and water
resources are a substantial source of value to county residents, visitors, and others who
live in the five watersheds to which Oakland County’s water resources contribute. They
also contribute to making Oakland County a desirable place in which to locate a business,
play a role in attracting businesses to Oakland County, and make it easier for firms to
recruit and retain employees.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 3

Introduction
The term “green infrastructure” means different things to different people, but the
definitions have in common a recognition of the importance of the natural environment in
providing services for communities. A Green Infrastructure Work Group, consisting of
representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service; local,
state, and federal agencies; and nongovernmental organizations, including The
Conservation Fund, defines green infrastructure as:
an interconnected network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands,
wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks and
other conservation lands; working farms, ranches, and forests; and
wilderness and other open spaces that support native species,
maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and water
resources, and contribute to the health and quality of life for
America’s communities and people (Benedict and McMahon
2002).
Located in southeast Michigan, Oakland County is part of the greater Detroit
metropolitan area and has a strong history of economic prosperity. Key indicators
presented below characterize the county’s economic profile:
• Oakland County ranks first among Michigan counties in mean annual household
earnings ($81,000) and second in median annual household income (almost $61,900)
(U.S. Census Bureau, November 2002).
• Oakland County’s 41,812 businesses and government agencies employed more than
720,000 people with a total annual payroll of over $35 billion in 2005.
• About 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies and 50 percent of Global Fortune 500
companies have locations in Oakland County.
• Oakland County is home to 70 percent of southeast Michigan’s OEM (original
equipment manufacturer) parts suppliers and 46 percent of Michigan’s research and
development firms (Oakland County Fast Facts).
• Oakland County is one of only 20 counties in the nation with a Triple-A bond rating.
In terms of population, approximately 1.2 million people or roughly 12 percent of all
Michigan residents live in Oakland County. It is also Michigan’s most densely populated
county, with 95 percent of the population classified as urban (U.S. Census Bureau,
September 2002).
In spite of its location in a major metropolitan area and its largely urban population,
Oakland County boasts an extensive and diverse natural environment that, in addition to
numerous lakes and wetlands, includes substantial areas of undeveloped forests and open
space. These resources provide recreational opportunities to county residents as well as to
visitors; provide ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat, flood control, and water
supply; serve as a recreational resource for tourists from outside the county; and
contribute to an environment that attracts businesses and workers to Oakland County.
4
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

As Oakland County grows and pursues its economic development objectives, these
resources are under increasing pressure from development and population growth. It is
likely that Oakland County’s prosperity depends to some extent on its natural
environment and recreational infrastructure. To see if evidence supports this assertion,
the county has taken steps to document and quantify the role that Oakland County’s green
infrastructure assets play in the local economy. In 2007, the county worked with
Michigan State University’s Land Policy Institute to document the impact that proximity
to green infrastructure assets has on residential property values. Results of this work
indicate that specific green infrastructure amenities (lakes and rivers, recreation lands,
and trails and paths) contribute positively and significantly to residential property values.
For example, the study concluded that residential properties in Oakland County that are
situated within 15 meters of a lake have an average $55,082 greater market value (Land
Policy Institute, December 2007).
The county hopes local communities will utilize this information in support of
progressive and forward-looking planning to retain, enhance, and maintain a strong green
infrastructure network that complements growth and economic development. The results
of this study clearly indicate that Oakland’s green infrastructure assets contribute
significantly and positively to the county’s economy and quality of life and should be
considered as an integral component to local economic development strategies.
This introduction first briefly reviews the purpose of the study and the methods employed
to carry out the work. It then presents a profile of Oakland County’s green infrastructure
and water resources. Finally, it reviews the key study findings. The chapters of the report
that follow the introduction describe the four key components of the research
individually.
STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS
Public Sector Consultants (PSC) worked on this study with Oakland County’s Planning
& Economic Development Services (PEDS) office, a division within the county’s
Economic Development and Community Affairs Department. The PEDS office assists in
preserving and strengthening the economic base and natural environment in order to
maintain and create sustainable and distinctive communities for the present and future
residents of Oakland County.
This study focuses primarily on one component of Oakland County’s green
infrastructure, its abundant water resources. Surveys and secondary data were used to
identify the ways in which water resources benefit Oakland County’s residents and
businesses and, to the extent possible, to quantify these benefits in monetary terms.
Primary components of the research include:
• Estimating recreational values to Oakland County residents—PSC designed and
administered a survey of 600 Oakland County households to determine their
recreational use of the county’s green infrastructure and water resources. Recreational
use levels were multiplied by existing estimates of the value of recreational activities
to obtain an estimate of the recreational value of Oakland County’s water resources to
county residents.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 5

• Reviewing ecosystem service values—A literature review summarized the
ecosystem services associated with Oakland County’s water resources and estimates
of the economic value of those resources.
• Estimating tourism activity and values—The study used secondary data from
Michigan State University’s Michigan Travel Market Survey to estimate tourism
activity from neighboring states and provinces to Oakland County.
• Assessing the impact of the county’s natural environment on business location
decisions and employee recruiting and retention—PSC designed and administered
a survey of Oakland County businesses to assess the importance of the county’s green
infrastructure and water resources in attracting businesses to the county and on the
ability of those firms to attract and retain workers.
OAKLAND COUNTY’S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATER
RESOURCES
Oakland County owes its natural diversity and abundance of water resources to events of
the distant past. Approximately 14,500 years ago the last glaciers to cover the state of
Michigan began to melt and their retreat gave rise to the major river drainage systems of
the Great Lakes basin. As the glaciers melted they deposited large amounts of sediment
and debris across the landscape and created the glacial moraines and associated lakes,
rivers, and wetlands that now dominate Oakland County’s landscape.
Today, Oakland County’s rolling landform is a mosaic of remnant natural features
combined with commercial, residential, and industrial land uses and transportation
corridors. Undeveloped forests and fields in both public and private ownership; state,
county, and municipal parks; and a developing trail system tie many of these components
together for recreational use.
Roughly one-quarter of Oakland County’s area is accessible for public recreation, an
impressive figure for a largely urbanized county. Key features of Oakland County’s
natural environment and recreational infrastructure include:
• About 1,450 lakes covering 34,600 acres (6.0 percent of the total area of the county)
• Over 25,000 acres of wetlands (4.3 percent of the total land area)
• Headwaters of five major rivers (Clinton, Flint, Huron, Rouge, and Shiawassee)
• Over 80,000 acres of public parks and recreation land (13.9 percent of the county’s
area)
• 342 public and private beaches
• An extensive network of public trails including 96 miles of completed trails, 13 miles
in the planning and design phase, and 155 miles under consideration
Between 2005 and 2008, PEDS facilitated a series of workshops with participants from
Oakland County communities to establish a countywide green infrastructure vision.
Generally, workshop participants (5–8 people) included community planning commission
members, zoning board of appeals members, residents, and parks and public works
employees. During the workshops, community participants used their local knowledge
and a set of information resource maps (including aerial photography, water resources,
6
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

trails and recreation lands, remaining high-quality natural areas, land use, topography,
etc.) to identify and document the community’s existing green infrastructure. When
compiled, the information creates a countywide vision that can be used to guide future
conservation activities. Exhibit 1 illustrates the extent of Oakland County’s green
infrastructure as identified during the workshops.
Exhibit 2 shows the pattern of development in Oakland County within which its green
infrastructure provides services. 2 The density of commercial, industrial, and residential
development declines with movement away from the southeast corner of the county. The
concentration of lakes in the center of the county is largely developed but has substantial
areas of recreation and conservation land nearby. The northern and western edges of the
county are less densely populated and contain agricultural and vacant lands in addition to
most of the recreation and conservation land in the county.
2 Land use is derived from tax classifications of parcels.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 7

EXHIBIT 1
Oakland County Green Infrastructure Network
SOURCE: Oakland County, 2008.
8
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 2
Oakland County Land Use (2007)
SOURCE: Oakland County, 2008.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 9

While much of the research conducted in conjunction with this report addresses green
infrastructure in general, the main focus of the report, particularly the economic valuation
component, is on water resources.
KEY FINDINGS
Oakland County’s green infrastructure and water resources are a substantial source of
value to county residents, visitors, and others who live in the five watersheds to which
Oakland County’s water resources contribute. They also contribute to making Oakland
County a desirable place in which to locate a business, play a role in attracting businesses
to Oakland County, and make it easier for firms to attract employees. Key findings of the
research with respect to recreation, tourism, ecosystem services, and business
location/retention include the following:
Recreation
• Oakland County residents attribute substantial value to the county’s green
infrastructure and water resources. The value derives in part from direct use. About
40 percent of county residents use the county’s recreational resources at least once
per week. Green infrastructure resources also contribute substantially to residents’
quality of life. In general, however, the contribution of green infrastructure is less
important to quality of life than community characteristics such as high-quality
schools or low crime rates.
• County residents visit water recreation sites primarily for general recreation (walking,
running, biking, picnicking, relaxing, etc.). Watching wildlife is the next most
frequent activity, followed by swimming or using a beach. Fewer residents engage in
power boating, canoeing, fishing, and hunting.
• Among residents who use local recreational resources, more visit parks (80 percent)
than any other recreational resource. About 60 percent to 65 percent visit trails, public
lakes, and rivers and streams. Fewer people visit undeveloped woods and fields (54
percent), private lakes (45 percent), and wetlands (43 percent).
• When accounting for the frequency of visits, however, residents make the most visits
to wetlands (an average of 29 visits per year per household). Residents visit rivers and
streams an average of 26 times per year, private lakes an average of 25 times per year,
parks an average of 23 times per year, trails and public lakes an average of 22 times
per year, and undeveloped woods and fields an average of 18 times per year. 3
• Considering only aspects of green infrastructure, county residents rate general
characteristics such as the quality of the natural environment and scenic beauty as
more important than specific components like trails, pathways, and water resources.
This finding suggests that county residents value green infrastructure at least as much
for reasons not related to recreational use as for direct use.
• Five primary recreational activities dependent on Oakland County’s water resources
generate an estimated $200 million in annual recreational benefits to county residents,
even based on seemingly conservative estimates of day use values. Two categories of
3 Differences in average visitation rates between parks, trails, and undeveloped woods and fields and
between wetlands and rivers are not statistically different. All other differences are significant at a level of
at least 90 percent.
10
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

activity, beach visits/swimming, and canoeing/kayaking/sailing, generate over half of
the total value.
Tourism
• Oakland County attracted an estimated 394,514 pleasure trips from Michigan,
neighboring states, and the province of Ontario during 2007. About 1.3 million
people visited Oakland County on these trips and spent an average of 3.5 days in the
county.
• While recreation is rarely the primary purpose of pleasure trips to Oakland County,
recreational activities figure prominently in visitors’ activities while in the county.
More than 40 percent of visitors (accounting for approximately 161,000 pleasure
trips) engaged in some outdoor activity in Oakland County and 20 percent
(accounting for approximately 78,000 pleasure trips) engaged in activities that
directly depended on water resources.
• Even though a substantial number of tourists engage in water-based recreation while
they are in Oakland County, this type of recreation is rarely the primary purpose of
their trips.
• Available tourism data do not provide the activity-specific spending information
necessary to estimate the direct impact of water-based recreation; however, the fact
that in 2007 an estimated 78,000 pleasure trip visits to Oakland County involved
water-based recreation suggests that the economic impact of the county’s water
resources is not trivial.
Ecosystem Services
• Oakland County’s substantial and varied freshwater resources likely produce
substantial ecosystem services. Many of these services accrue primarily to Oakland
County residents and other residents of the five watersheds of which Oakland County
is the source.
• Oakland County’s water resources produce an estimated $806 million in ecosystem
services annually, $167 million attributable to 34,600 acres of lakes and ponds and
$639 million stemming from 56,400 acres of wetlands. Oakland County residents are
the primary beneficiaries of most of these services although populations downstream
in the five watersheds to which Oakland County contributes share in the benefits.
• Three services (disturbance regulation values associated with wetlands, water supply
values of wetlands, and water regulation values of lakes and rivers) account for
almost three-quarters of the total value of freshwater ecosystem services in the
county.
Business Location and Retention
• A substantial proportion of firms felt that access to parks, trails, and paths (34
percent); access to water-based recreation (23 percent); and proximity to natural areas
(18 percent) were at least of moderate importance in their decision to locate in
Oakland County.
• Similarly, green infrastructure affected many firms’ perceived ability to attract and
retain a high-quality workforce. More than half (59 percent) said that access to parks,
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 11

trails, and paths influenced recruiting and retention; 54 percent said that access to
water-based recreation was at least moderately important in recruiting; and 49 percent
said the same of proximity to natural areas.
• Although green infrastructure factors were important to many firms, even more firms
ranked business-oriented factors (i.e., proximity to customers, labor and costs, access
to transportation, and government support) and community factors (i.e., quality of
schools, safety, housing costs) as important factors for business location decisionmaking.
• While New Economy (such as financial, health, information, and professional
services) and smaller firms (fewer than 20 employees) ranked business-oriented and
community factors as more important than green infrastructure to location decisions
and recruiting, they placed a greater importance on many green infrastructure factors
than did other types of firms.
12
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

Household Recreation Survey
INTRODUCTION
Water resources and other natural features have become a highly valued amenity in many
Michigan communities and throughout the nation. They provide residents and visitors
with a place for recreation and offer a high-quality setting in which to live. Just like any
other infrastructure or local amenity, however, these water resources must be protected to
ensure that they maintain their high appeal for residents and visitors and their usefulness
in providing a number of ecological services, such as water quality and temperature
control, storm water management, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat.
Oakland County’s Planning & Economic Development Services (PEDS) staff recognize
the intrinsic value of their water resources to individuals and the environment, but seek to
quantify and document the economic importance of these inherent values to the local
economy and the welfare of county residents. To achieve this goal, Public Sector
Consultants (PSC) used different valuation approaches, one of which was a telephone
survey of Oakland County households that focused on recreational use of the county’s
water resources. A benefits transfer approach then determined the economic values
associated with estimated levels of recreational use.
METHODOLOGY
In April 2008, PSC conducted a telephone survey of 600 households in Oakland County
to examine county residents’ recreational use of water resources. Survey results provide a
basis for estimating the frequency with which Oakland County residents use water
resources for recreational purposes. The tightly focused survey addressed three primary
issues:
• county residents’ perceptions of the relative importance of selected characteristics of
Oakland County with a focus on green infrastructure components and water
resources,
• the frequency of use of various recreational resources in Oakland County, and
• the frequency of water-based recreation activities.
The survey also collected basic demographic information with which to compare the
sample to the general population and to analyze responses.
This study then used a benefits transfer 4 approach to develop monetary values associated
with a day spent on various water-based recreational activities. Coupled with survey
estimates of annual recreational use by county residents, these values generate estimates
of the economic value to Oakland County residents associated with different water-based
recreational activities.
4 The benefits transfer approach transfers value estimates from sites where valuation research has been
conducted to other sites that lack estimates from original research.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 13

Survey Instrument Development
To develop the survey instrument, PSC followed a process of drafting the instrument,
testing it with potential respondents, revising it, and retesting. Specific steps were:
• In collaboration with Oakland County personnel, PSC developed a draft questionnaire
that addressed research objectives.
• PSC conducted three focus groups with Oakland County residents to learn how
potential respondents thought about and articulated the issues addressed by the
survey. Each focus group began with a structured discussion of the issues and ended
with a pretest of the draft questionnaire. During the pretests, participants first filled
out the questionnaire with instructions to note any questions or difficulties.
Subsequent debriefing explored the source of difficulties and how they might be
resolved.
• After each focus group PSC modified the questionnaire based on lessons learned
during the focus group.
• This process produced a final questionnaire that communicated well with potential
respondents and used familiar language and concepts. Appendix A contains the final
questionnaire and survey results.
Personnel from Oakland County’s PEDS division of the Economic Development and
Community Affairs Department identified and recruited focus group participants. Exhibit
3 summarizes characteristics of the three focus groups.
EXHIBIT 3
Focus Group Details
Participants
Date Location Recruited from Number
December 5, 2007 Executive Office Building County employees 14
December 5, 2007 Executive Office Building Conservation organizations 17
December 13, 2007 Oakland Schools Admin. School district employees 9
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., 2008.
Sample Selection
PSC expected that respondents’ proximity to water would influence recreational use;
therefore a random sample of county residents would not have yielded enough interviews
with households living on the waterfront to facilitate statistically significant comparisons
between those households and those not living on water. To address this issue, the survey
was administered to two strata with a random sample selected from each. 5 One was a
random sample of 300 households in Oakland County and the other was a random sample
5 The experimental design called for two strata, (1) all households and (2) households located on the
waterfront. A sample of 300 was randomly selected from each stratum. Even though the sample of all
households contains some households on the water, those households are not part of the “on-water”
stratum. The analysis applies sample weights only to the oversampled on-water stratum and not to the
sample of all households for which the sampling rate reflects the entire population.
14
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

of 300 households on parcels of land adjacent to a water body measuring 10 or more
acres.
PSC used a private vendor to generate the 300-household sample through random digit
dialing. To generate the sample of on-water households, PSC used addresses provided by
the Oakland County Planning Department, which used its geographic information system
(GIS) to identify all residential parcels that intersect a lake of at least 10 acres in size. The
selection identified 22,011 households. A private vendor was able to obtain telephone
numbers for 12,331 of these households, from which PSC randomly selected 10,000 as
potential survey subjects. The private vendor then called households on the list until 300
interviews were completed. The survey has a margin of error of ±5.6 percent at a 95
percent confidence interval for both strata. 6
Of the 600 interviews completed, 325 respondents said that the property on which they
lived had frontage on a lake, river, or stream and 270 did not (five declined to answer or
did not know). Exhibit 4 summarizes characteristics of the sample.
EXHIBIT 4
Sample Characteristics
Lived on water
(from questionnaire)
Sample stratum No Yes
Don't
know/refused
Stratum size
Waterfront 21 277 2 300
Non-waterfront 249 48 3 300
Totals 270 325 5 600
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
KEY FINDINGS
Key conclusions of the survey include:
• Oakland County residents attribute substantial value to the county’s green
infrastructure and water resources. The value derives in part from direct use. About
40 percent of county residents use the county’s recreational resources at least once
per week. Green infrastructure resources contribute substantially to residents’ quality
of life. In general, however, the contribution of green infrastructure is less important
to quality of life than community characteristics such as high-quality schools or low
crime rates.
• County residents visit water recreation sites primarily for general recreation (walking,
running, biking, picnicking, relaxing, etc.). Watching wildlife is the next most
6 For example, if the answer to a survey question is 60 percent “Yes,” the margin of error and confidence
level mean that if this question were asked 100 times, in 95 occurrences the answer of the entire universe of
respondents would be between 54.4 percent and 65.6 percent (i.e., the ± 5.6 percent margin of error). In the
other 5 occurrences, the true answer from the universe would be either below or above this range
(confidence interval).
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 15

frequent activity, followed by swimming or using a beach. Fewer residents engage in
power boating, canoeing, fishing, and hunting.
• Among residents who use local recreational resources, more (80 percent) visit parks
than any other recreational resource. About 60 percent to 65 percent visit trails, public
lakes, and rivers and streams. Fewer people visit undeveloped woods and fields (54
percent), private lakes (45 percent), and wetlands (43 percent).
• When accounting for the frequency of visits, however, residents make the most visits
to wetlands (an average of 29 visits per year per household). Residents visit rivers and
streams an average of 26 times per year, private lakes an average of 25 times per year,
parks an average of 23 times per year, trails and public lakes an average of 22 times
per year, and undeveloped woods and fields an average of 18 times per year. 7
Differences in average visitation rates between parks, trails, and undeveloped woods
and fields and between wetlands and rivers are not statistically different. All other
differences are significant at a level of at least 90 percent.
• Considering only aspects of green infrastructure, county residents rate general
characteristics such as the quality of the natural environment and scenic beauty as
more important than specific components like trails, pathways, and water resources.
This finding suggests that county residents value green infrastructure at least as much
for reasons not related to recreational use as for direct use.
• Even based on seemingly conservative estimates of day use values, five primary
recreational activities dependent on Oakland County’s water resources generate an
estimated $200 million in annual recreational benefits to county residents. Two
categories of activity, beach visits/swimming, and canoeing/kayaking/sailing,
generate over half of the total value.
OAKLAND COUNTY’S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
The survey began by exploring the contribution of Oakland County’s green infrastructure
to residents’ quality of life relative to other county characteristics. Green infrastructure
components included the availability of lakes, rivers, and streams; easy access to parks,
trails, and pathways; the diversity of the landscape; the quality of the natural
environment; and the county’s scenic beauty. Other characteristics included the variety
and number of employment opportunities; the safety of communities; the diversity of
activities available nearby; the sense of community, the quality of schools; and the
variety of living choices available.
The survey asked respondents how much each characteristic currently affects their
quality of life. Response categories were a very large effect, a large effect, a moderate
effect, a small effect, or no effect at all. Exhibit 5 summarizes the proportion of responses
in each category.
7 Variations in average visitation rates between parks, trails, and undeveloped woods and fields and
between wetlands and rivers are not statistically different. All other differences are significant at a level of
at least 90 percent.
16
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 5
Effect of County Characteristics on Quality of Life
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
Each of these characteristics, with the exception of a variety of living choices, has at least
a “large” effect on the quality of life of a majority of county residents. Overall, however,
several key community characteristics (i.e., safety, quality of schools, diversity of
activities) are considered more important than green infrastructure elements.
Nevertheless, well over half of respondents believe that green infrastructure makes at
least a “large” contribution to their quality of life.
Considering only aspects of green infrastructure, general characteristics such as the
quality of the natural environment and scenic beauty are more important to residents than
specific components like trails, pathways, and water resources. This finding suggests that
county residents value green infrastructure at least as much for reasons not related to
recreational use as for direct use.
USE OF RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Many Oakland County residents make frequent use of the county’s recreational
resources. Survey results suggest that 40 percent of county residents visit a recreational
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 17

site such as a park, trail, lake, wetland, river, or undeveloped open space at least weekly.
A nearly equal proportion of residents (36 percent), however, visit these resources at
most occasionally, i.e., no more than 8 times per year. The location of a residence relative
to water dramatically affects the frequency of use. Not surprisingly, residents who live
adjacent to the water are significantly more likely to visit a recreational resource daily
than are those who do not have a waterfront residence; those who live on the water
presumably choose to live there, in part, for ease of use/access.
Exhibit 6 summarizes data on the frequency of visits to recreational resources for
waterfront residents, those who do not live on the waterfront, and the average for all
county residents. 8
8 The average for all county residents is a weighted average to account for the different sampling rates for
waterfront and non-waterfront respondents.
18
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 6
Frequency of Recreational Activity, by Location of Residence
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
What is less intuitive, however, is that those who live on the water are also significantly
more likely than other respondents to visit not only public and private lakes but also
wetlands, rivers and streams, and undeveloped forests or fields. Exhibit 7 compares
visitation frequencies for the separate types of recreational resources.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 19

EXHIBIT 7
Use of Recreation Resources, by Location of Residence
20
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 7 (cont.)
Use of Recreation Resources, by Location of Residence
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 21

EXHIBIT 7 (cont.)
Use of Recreation Resources, by Location of Residence
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
22
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

Exhibit 8 summarizes the use of specific types of recreational sites. The length of each
bar represents the proportion of county residents who visited specific types of
recreational sites within the past 12 months. The size of each bar segment represents
frequency of use. For example, more survey respondents reported visiting parks than any
other type of recreational site. Of those who visited parks, more visited occasionally than
monthly and more visited monthly than weekly.
EXHIBIT 8
Use and Frequency of Visits to Recreational Resources
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
More county residents (81 percent) use parks than any other individual recreational
resource. About 60 percent to 65 percent report visiting trails, public lakes, or rivers or
streams within the past 12 months. Fewer residents (45 percent) report visiting a wetland
during the past 12 months.
It is important to note that the number of people who visit a resource (volume) is not
always proportional to the frequency of use. Although fewer residents visited wetlands
than other resources, those who did visited more frequently than visitors to other
resources. Conversely, although more people visited parks than other types of resources,
they visited less frequently. Exhibit 9 summarizes estimates of average annual visitation
rates. The questionnaire asked whether respondents visited each type of site daily,
weekly, twice monthly, monthly, occasionally, or never. 9 Visitation frequency data are
thus not exact numbers but ranges with lower and upper bounds. Exhibit 9 reports
9 The questionnaire defined “Daily” as three or more times per week, “Weekly” as 1 to 2 times per week,
“Once every two weeks” as 2 to 3 times per month, “Monthly” as 9 to 23 times per year, and
“Occasionally” as no more than 8 times per year.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 23

estimates based on the lower and upper bounds and on the range midpoints. The table
also reports separate estimates for all county residents, waterfront residents, and those
who do not live adjacent to water.
EXHIBIT 9
Annual Visitation Rates, by Type of Recreation Resource
and Place of Residence
Average annual visitation rate (days/year/household)
Recreational All residents Waterfront Non-waterfront
resource Midpoint Lower Upper Midpoint Lower Upper Midpoint Lower Upper
Wetlands 29 17 41 73 44 103 18 11 26
River or
27 16 37 74 44 103 15 9 21
stream
Private lake 25 15 35 85 51 118 11 7 15
Parks 23 14 32 27 17 37 22 14 30
Trails 23 14 31 34 21 47 19 12 27
Public lake 22 13 31 58 35 81 14 8 18
Undeveloped 18 11 25 40 25 56 13 8 18
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
Although private lakes have the highest average (midpoint) annual visitation rate among
those who live on the waterfront, and parks have the highest average (midpoint) annual
visitation rate among those who do not live on water, wetlands have the highest average
(midpoint) annual visitation rate among all county residents. The typical household visits
most types of recreational sites about twice a month, although there is considerable
variation in visitation rates across households.
Regression analysis of visitation rates reveals that living on water has the greatest
influence on how frequently a respondent visits any type of recreational site with the
exception of visits to trails and pathways. Analysis also shows that:
• Higher-income households visit trails more frequently than lower-income households.
• Men visit private lakes more frequently than do women.
• Older respondents visit parks more frequently than do younger respondents.
WATER-BASED RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY
The survey also asked about how frequently respondents engage in specific water-based
recreation activities. Exhibit 10 summarizes the average number of times per year the
average household reported engaging in each activity; it shows the average for all
households, for households that live on the waterfront, and for households that do not live
adjacent to water.
24
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 10
Average Annual Recreational Visits for Water Resources, by Type of Activity
and Location of Residence
Recreational activity All residents Waterfront Non-waterfront
General recreation 19.36 40.52 14.47
Watching wildlife 11.06 21.07 8.85
Swimming or using a beach 8.17 22.13 4.92
Power boating or jet skiing 4.78 15.77 2.17
Canoeing, kayaking, or sailing 2.36 5.48 1.62
Fishing 2.22 5.25 1.51
Hunting 0.33 1.3 0.11
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
Estimated rates of recreational activity provide the basis for estimating the total number
of recreational visits to Oakland County’s water resources by county residents. The 2006
American Community Survey for Oakland County estimated that there were 478,527
households in Oakland County in 2006. Multiplying this by the estimates of annual visits
per household from Exhibit 10 yields the total number of recreational visits reported in
Exhibit 11.
EXHIBIT 11
Annual Recreational Use of Water Resources, by Activity
Recreational activity
Number of individual visits
General recreation 9,264,283
Watching wildlife 5,292,509
Swimming or using a beach 3,909,566
Power boating or jet skiing 2,287,359
Canoeing, kayaking, or sailing 1,129,324
Fishing 1,062,330
Hunting 157,914
Total 23,103,284
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008, and U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 2006.
The questionnaire also asked respondents to relate, in their own words, other reasons (i.e.,
non-recreational) that Oakland County’s water resources were important to them. Almost
half (296) of respondents provided an answer. The most common reason (given by 32
percent of respondents) was the contribution water resources make to the county’s scenic
beauty. The following response is representative.
“It is for natural beauty. It is beautiful to see something soothing to the eyes.”
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 25

Many respondents also mentioned general environmental issues (25 percent) and wildlife
(20 percent) as reasons water resources are important. The following representative
comments illustrate respondents’ views on environment and wildlife, respectively.
“All natural resources should be highly protected. My husband and I are strong
advocates for all natural resources of Michigan. We want to keep and protect
what is natural in Michigan. We need to use these natural resources with
precaution.”
“They are important for the habitat they provide for all the birds, mammals, and
amphibians. I would rather look at trees than houses.”
Preservation of water resources, particularly for future generations, and concerns about
water quality were common themes among respondents who mentioned general
environmental issues as reasons for the importance of water resources.
Respondents also mentioned the impact of water resources on property values, general
quality of life, general recreation, and relaxation/serenity. Many of these categories of
responses overlap. Appendix A contains complete transcriptions of responses.
THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WATER-BASED RECREATION
A key objective of the survey was to estimate monetary values associated with waterbased
recreation. Original research to establish the values of each type of recreation in
Oakland County would be expensive and time consuming and was beyond the scope of
this study. In lieu of original research, the study used a benefits transfer approach, which
applies existing value estimates for different types of recreation activities to the
recreational use estimates obtained from the household recreation survey. 10
Two recent summaries of recreational use values (Loomis 2005; Rosenberger and
Loomis 2001) helped identify studies that estimated values that were potentially
transferable to Oakland County.
Values reported in this study are measures of consumer surplus. Consumer surplus is the
difference between the maximum amount an individual would be willing to pay for a
recreational experience and the amount he or she actually pays (Freeman 1993). To
illustrate, consider the demand curve D in Exhibit 12. The demand curve describes a
relationship between the price (P) of accessing a recreational resource and the number of
trips (T) an individual makes to the resource in a year. The downward slope of the
demand curve implies that individuals will make fewer trips to a site as the cost of doing
so increases. The cost of accessing the site may consist of the cost of travel, admission
fees, the opportunity cost of the time required for travel, and other costs associated with
gaining access to the site.
For a given individual, the downward slope of the demand curve implies that the person
is willing to pay more for the first trip, less for the second, and so forth. Therefore, if the
fixed cost of visiting the site is p, the individual enjoys a surplus for the first visit, a lesser
surplus from the second visit, and so forth until the marginal benefit from another trip just
10 Rosenberger and Loomis (2001) provide an excellent discussion of the benefits transfer approach in the
context of outdoor recreation values.
26
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

equals the trip cost at t trips. The sum of the surpluses over all trips is the individual’s
consumer surplus. This is the area apc in Exhibit 12. The total consumer surplus (i.e.,
value) of a site is the sum of consumer surpluses over all visitors to the site.
EXHIBIT 12
Consumer Surplus Model
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., 2008.
Individuals who live close to a site, and thus have lower travel costs (i.e., a lower value of
p), enjoy larger consumer surpluses than those who live further away and have higher
travel costs (i.e., a higher value of p).
Consumer Surplus
Consumer surplus is the net
value of an amenity to a
consumer. It is the difference
between an individual’s
maximum willingness to pay
for access to an amenity and
what the individual actually
has to pay to gain access.
Consumer surplus is not
actual spending. It is the
surplus in value remaining
after actual expenses.
The accuracy of a benefits transfer approach depends, in
part, on how well the demand curve estimated for the site
that provides the value estimate matches the demand curve
of the site to which values are transferred. This analysis
selected studies of sites that appear as similar as possible to
Oakland County. Since the studies were conducted at
different times, inflation distorts the comparison. This study
thus uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to convert all
values to 2007 dollars.
The analysis concludes that Oakland County’s water
resources generate more than $200 million annually in
recreational benefits to county residents. Exhibit 13
summarizes estimated per day and aggregate consumer surplus values accruing to
Oakland County residents from the five most common water-based recreational activities
addressed in the household recreation survey: wildlife viewing; beach use and swimming;
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 27

power boating; canoeing, kayaking, and sailing; and fishing. 11 The remainder of this
section briefly reviews the original research that provided the transferred values and
describes the calculation of aggregate values.
EXHIBIT 13
Aggregate Values
Estimated annual visits
by Oakland County
residents
Aggregate value to
Oakland County
residents (millions of $)
Per day
Recreational activity value ($)
Wildlife viewing $6.26 5,292,509 $33
Swimming or using a beach 18.34 3,909,566 72
Power boating or jet skiing 13.02 2,287,359 30
Canoeing, kayaking, or sailing 37.93 1,129,324 43
Fishing 21.63 1,062,330 23
Total $201
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Household Recreation Survey, April 2008.
Values for Wildlife Viewing
A study of wildlife viewing values in Pennsylvania (Shafer, Carline, Guldin, and Cordell,
1993) estimated, among other values, consumer surplus values for viewing migratory
waterfowl at a 5,200-acre wildlife management area. Although this does not precisely
match the experience of Oakland County residents visiting local sites, it is much more
similar than many other exiting wildlife viewing values (e.g., elk viewing). 12 Most of the
visitors to the Pennsylvania site came from 50 to 100 miles away, somewhat farther than
the average Oakland County resident would have to travel to a local site. As with
Oakland County, however, most visitors to the Pennsylvania site (95 percent) made
single-day trips.
The Pennsylvania study estimated the consumer surplus value of a day trip for viewing
waterfowl as $6.26. This is well below the average value of $34.36 reported in a review
(Loomis 2005) of 65 values estimated in the northeast region and also well below the
average value of $34.44 reported in a review of 56 northeast region value estimates
(Rosenberger and Loomis 2001). The estimate for Oakland County is thus likely to be
conservative.
The household survey estimated that the average Oakland County household visited a site
in Oakland County to view wildlife 11.1 times per year. Multiplied by the estimated
478,527 households in Oakland County, this implies almost 5.3 million wildlife viewing
trips by county residents. The total consumer surplus to county residents associated with
these visits is an estimated $33 million.
11 The category of “general recreation” near water was too vague to identify potential values for benefits
transfer. Nevertheless, the survey found that many county residents engage in general recreation enhanced
by the proximity to water and that water resources do have value in this context.
12 Focus group participants in Oakland County gave the impression of more casual wildlife viewing than
that implied by trips to specific sites to view specific types of wildlife (e.g., migratory waterfowl).
28
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

Values for Beach Use and Swimming
A study of the value of day trips to Headlands beach on eastern Lake Erie (Sohngen,
Lichtkoppler, and Bielen, 1998) provided values for recreational use of beaches (i.e.,
general beach recreation and swimming) that appear applicable to Oakland County. The
study used the travel cost approach to estimate a demand curve for day trips to the beach.
Headlands beach is comparable to Oakland County beaches in a number ways. First, it is
close to major metropolitan areas: Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh and Erie, Pennsylvania.
Second, the average distance that people travel for day visits to Headland beach is 26
miles—probably not too much farther than the distance an average Oakland County
resident travels to visit a local beach. Third, the lack of other recreational amenities near
the Headlands beach (e.g., golf courses, casinos) suggests that people visit the beach
primarily for beach recreation, a situation that likely characterizes Oakland County
residents’ visits to local beaches. On the other hand, the beach is on a Great Lake, which
may be a different experience than a beach visit to the inland lakes of Oakland County.
The study estimated average consumer surplus of a trip to the beach at $18.34. This value
appears conservative as it is well below average values estimated by other studies.
Loomis (2005) reports an average value of $46.76 over 22 estimates of the value of beach
use and $24.38 over seven estimates of the value of swimming in the northeast (a region
that contains Michigan). The review of Rosenberger and Loomis (2001) reported an
average value of $21.63 for swimming in the northeast region. The estimate from
Headlands beach used for the benefits transfer is thus likely to be relatively conservative.
The household survey estimated that the average Oakland County household visits a
beach for beach recreation or swimming 8.2 times per year. Multiplied by the estimated
478,527 households in Oakland County, this implies over 3.9 million annual beach visits
by county residents. In terms of consumer surplus, the total value of these visits to county
residents is an estimated $72 million.
Values for Power Boating
The Rosenberger and Loomis review (2001) notes only one study of the value of power
boating in the northeast region and only 13 nationwide. Loomis (2005) cites three studies
associated with power boating in the northeast region. The present study draws values for
“power boating and waterskiing” from a national study that estimates values for ten
separate regions (Bhat, Bergstrom, Teasely, Bowker, and Cordell, 1998). While the study
report provides little detail with which to assess the applicability of the value estimates to
Oakland County, it is based on a large national sample, estimates region-specific values,
and, among the available studies, probably provides the values most applicable to
Oakland County. The estimate is conservative compared to other estimates, however, and
may therefore understate the value of power boating to Oakland County residents.
The original research estimated the average value of a day of power boating and water
skiing in the northeast and Great Lakes region at $13.02. 13 For the sake of comparison,
Loomis (2005) reported an average value of $32.58 over a single study in the northeast
13 The original study does not report the basis for estimated values. Values are thus assumed to be
denominated in dollars as of the publishing date (1996) and adjusted to 2007 values from that basis.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 29

egion. Rosenberger and Loomis (2001) reported an average value of $88.21 per day for
motor boating in the northeast region.
Applied to the 2.3 million annual power boating trips made by Oakland County
households within the county, the consumer surplus value associated with power boating
among Oakland County residents is an estimated $30 million.
Values for Canoeing, Kayaking, or Sailing
Two reviews (Rosenberger and Loomis 2001; Loomis 2005) document 19 and six value
estimates, respectively, for the aggregate categories of “floatboating/canoeing/ rafting,”
and “non-motorized boating,” with most focusing on whitewater rafting. A 1996 study
sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service (Bergstrom et al. 1996), however, estimated
consumer surplus values specifically for “sailing and boating,” excluding power boating.
The analysis used data from the ongoing, national, multi-agency Public Area Recreation
Visitors Study (PARVS) that collects data from over 350 sites nationwide. It estimated
separate values for ten separate regions. The study estimated the average consumer
surplus value for sailing and boating in the northeast and Great Lakes region at $37.93.
This also appears to be a relatively conservative estimate. The Rosenberger and Loomis
(2001) review found an average value of $70.03 per trip based on four studies of “nonmotorized
boating” in the northeast region. Loomis (2005) calculated an average per day
value of $96.94 from six studies for “float boating/rafting/canoeing” in the northeast
region.
The household recreation survey conducted in Oakland County concluded that the
average household makes 2.36 canoeing, kayaking, or sailing trips per year. Aggregated
over the estimated 478,527 households in Oakland County and valued at $37.93 per trip,
Oakland County residents enjoy an estimated aggregate consumer surplus of $43 million
annually associated with canoeing, kayaking, and sailing activities.
Values for Fishing
A study of the value of freshwater fishing in New York (Connelly and Brown 1991)
produced value estimates that appear reasonably applicable to Oakland County. While the
study included a variety of fishing locations and target species, values reflected primarily
those associated with warmwater species in inland lakes, which likely account for a
majority of the fishing activity in Oakland County. The study did not report the
distribution of trip length so it is not clear how many trips were day trips.
The study estimated an average per-day consumer surplus value of $21.63. This value is
likely conservative. Loomis (2005) reported an average value of $35.78 over 69 studies
in the northeast region. Rosenberger and Loomis (2001) reported an average of $41.18
over 43 estimates in the northeast region.
The Oakland County household survey estimated that the average household made 2.2
fishing trips each year. Aggregated over the estimated 478,527 households in Oakland
County, Oakland County households took about 1.1 million fishing trips within the
county in 2007. At an average per trip value of $21.63, this implies a total value
associated with county residents’ fishing activity of $23 million.
30
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

CONCLUSIONS
Oakland County’s efforts to preserve and maintain its green infrastructure and water
resources have protected an environment and recreational infrastructure that generates
substantial benefits for county residents. Many residents use the county’s recreational
amenities and place a substantial value on access to those resources. Using very
conservative estimates of day-use values, the benefits transfer exercise reported here
estimates that five primary water-based recreational activities (beach use and swimming;
fishing; power boating; wildlife viewing; and canoeing, kayaking, and sailing) generated
about $200 million in recreational benefits to Oakland County residents in 2007.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 31

The Economic Value of Water-Based
Tourism in Oakland County, Michigan
INTRODUCTION
Tourism activity stimulated by Oakland County’s water resources has the potential to
generate substantial economic impact. If tourists visit the county to use its water
resources they will spend money on food, lodging, and supplies. Such expenditures
represent an economic benefit to county residents and businesses. This report presents
evidence of the economic impact of water-based tourism activity in Oakland County.
Estimating the likely impact of water-based tourism first requires data on the number of
tourists who come to Oakland County for the purpose of water-based recreation and their
spending behavior. Survey data from Michigan State University’s Michigan Travel
Market Survey provided data on tourist activity and the extent to which that activity
relied on the county’s water resources. The survey focused on “pleasure trips,” defined as
overnight trips or day trips to places at least 50 miles from home. It did not include the
potentially substantial number of day trips that people from nearby areas, within a 50-
mile radius, may have made to the county for recreational purposes. Nevertheless, the
data reveal substantial tourist use of the county’s recreational resources.
The economic impact of water-dependent tourism is the local economic impact of tourist
spending in pursuit of water-based recreation. Unfortunately, analysis of the survey data
found that pleasure trip tourists do not visit Oakland County specifically for water-based
recreation. Even though a substantial number do engage in water-based recreation while
in the county, it is not the primary or secondary purpose of their visit. Therefore, trip
expenditures, even though they represent an economic impact on Oakland County, are
not attributable to the county’s water resources.
Key conclusions of the analysis include:
• Oakland County attracted an estimated 394,514 pleasure trips from Michigan,
neighboring states, and the province of Ontario during 2007. About 1.3 million
people visited Oakland County on these trips and spent an average of 3.5 days in the
county.
• While recreation is rarely the primary purpose of pleasure trips to Oakland County,
recreational activities figure prominently in visitors’ activities while in the county.
More than 40 percent of visitors (accounting for approximately 161,000 pleasure
trips) engaged in some outdoor activity in Oakland County and 20 percent
(accounting for approximately 78,000 pleasure trips) engaged in activities that
directly depend on water resources.
• Even though a substantial number of tourists engage in water-based recreation while
they are in Oakland County, this type of recreation is rarely the primary purpose of
their trips.
• Available tourism data do not provide the activity-specific spending information
necessary to estimate the direct impact of water-based recreation; however, the fact
32
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

that in 2007 an estimated 78,000 pleasure trip visits to Oakland County involved
water-based recreation suggests that the economic impact of the county’s water
resources is not trivial.
ESTIMATING TOURISM ACTIVITY IN OAKLAND COUNTY
Between 1996 and 2003, the Michigan Travel Market Survey (MTMS) surveyed random
samples of households in Michigan and its neighboring states and province on a monthly
basis. 14 The survey collected detailed data on travel activity of households in each of the
seven jurisdictions (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and
Ontario). Exhibit 14 summarizes the distribution of the sample by residence of
respondent and year. Data from these interviews provided the information necessary to
estimate tourist activity in Oakland County and the extent to which tourist visits and
activities depend on the county’s water resources.
EXHIBIT 14
Sample Distribution, Michigan Travel Market Survey, 1996–2003
State of
residence 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total
Illinois 711 643 653 724 695 627 320 4,373
Indiana 593 628 635 615 595 629 318 4,013
Michigan 1,001 990 1,036 1,208 1,215 1,237 582 7,269
Minnesota 780 631 717 0 0 0 0 2,128
Ohio 794 828 823 840 805 864 339 5,293
Wisconsin 763 657 687 779 799 721 323 4,729
Ontario 682 695 770 739 957 954 457 5,254
Totals 5,324 5,072 5,321 4,905 5,066 5,032 2,339 33,059
SOURCE: Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC), Michigan Travel
Market Survey.
NOTE: Data from 1999 were excluded from the analysis because of unexplained inconsistencies.
The survey solicited detailed information about the respondent’s most recent pleasure
trip 15 and, if the most recent trip was not to Michigan, their most recent pleasure trip to
Michigan. The detailed data includes the trip destination, the purpose of the trip, and the
activities in which the respondent engaged while on the trip. The survey also asked for
the total number of pleasure trips taken in the 12 months prior to the survey and the total
number of pleasure trips to Michigan during the same period.
Of the 33,059 households interviewed between 1996 and 2003, excluding responses from
1999 for which data were inconsistent, 20,443 (62 percent) had taken a pleasure trip
during the 12 months prior to the survey; 5,291 (26 percent of those who had taken
pleasure trips) had gone to Michigan; and 204 had visited Oakland County on their most
14 Michigan State University’s Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC) conducted the
survey.
15 The survey defined a pleasure trip as “any overnight or day trip to a place at least 50 miles from your
home that was made for your enjoyment, including vacations, weekend getaways, shopping trips, trips to a
second home, and trips to visit friends or relatives.”
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 33

ecent pleasure trip to Michigan. Data from these 204 respondents provide the
information necessary to describe tourism activities in Oakland County.
Because the surveys were conducted throughout the year, and thus controlled for any
seasonal patterns in pleasure trip destination, the most recent trips to Michigan are a
random sample of all trips to Michigan. The data therefore suggest that, on average
between 1996 and 2003, Oakland County accounted for 0.6 percent of annual pleasure
trips and 3.9 percent of all pleasure trips to Michigan. These proportions are applied to
the estimated number of households in each state in 2007 (the most recent Census figures
available) to estimate tourism activity for 2007. 16 Exhibit 15 summarizes Oakland County
tourism activity based on these data:
16 Population estimates for Ontario, Canada, are from 2006, the most recent estimates available for Canada.
34
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 15
Estimated Pleasure Trip Activity in Oakland County, 2007
State/
province of
residence
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)
Average % of
Average % of MI Annual trips
households who Average annual Total annual Average % of Annual trips trips to Oakland to Oakland
Households* took trips trips/household trips trips to MI to MI
County County
Illinois 4,724,252 60.9% 2.89 8,315,584 12.1% 1,004,553 5.1% 51,636
Indiana 2,435,274 59.8 3.11 4,529,293 13.0 589,492 2.7 15,866
Michigan 3,869,117 64.2 3.98 9,880,259 70.1 6,921,644 3.4 233,855
Minnesota 2,042,297 64.3 3.87 5,080,915 1.8 92,482 4.9 4,567
Ohio 4,499,506 59.6 2.84 7,621,135 10.1 771,758 6.7 51,549
Wisconsin 2,230,060 63.8 3.69 5,240,800 6.9 360,441 3.3 12,015
Ontario 4,555,025 58.3 3.25 8,633,442 6.1 530,574 4.7 25,027
Totals 394,514
SOURCE: Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC), Michigan Travel Market Survey.
* U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Population Estimates, and Statistics Canada, 2006 Census.
• First, data on pleasure trip activity from the Michigan Travel Market Survey provided an estimate of the proportion of households
that took at least one pleasure trip during the 12 months prior to the survey (column B).
• Column C presents the average number of pleasure trips per household during the 12 months prior to the survey. The average
considers all years but only households that reported at least one pleasure trip.
• Multiplying columns B, C, and A (the estimated number of households from 2007 Census estimates) yields column D, the total
number of trips per year taken by households in the state or province (U.S. Census 2007b; Statistics Canada 2007).
• Multiplying the average proportion of pleasure trips taken to Michigan (column E) by total annual trips (column D) yields an
estimate of the total number of trips annually to Michigan.
• Finally, data on the destination of Michigan trips reveal the proportion of Michigan trips taken to Oakland County (column G).
Multiplying this by the annual number of trips to Michigan yields the total number of pleasure trips per year to Oakland County
(column H). The visitation estimates represent estimates for 2007.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 35

Two common measures of travel activity are person trips (i.e., number of trips multiplied
by average size of party) and person days (i.e., person trips multiplied by average length
of stay). On average, pleasure trip visitors to Oakland County traveled in parties of 3.3
persons and stayed 3.6 nights. Based on the estimated 394,514 annual pleasure trips to
Oakland County, these numbers imply 1.3 million person trips and 4.7 million person
days each year. These numbers are reasonably close to more recent estimates from the
period 2000 through 2004 of 2.8 million person trips and 5.6 million person days (MSUE
2005).
Michigan was the most common destination of respondents’ most recent pleasure trip,
accounting for 17.7 percent of all trips. Furthermore, Oakland County is one of the most
popular destination counties in the state. Between 1996 and 2003, the county accounted
for 3.9 percent of all pleasure trips documented in the survey. This ranked it fifth in the
state behind Wayne, Grand Traverse, Saginaw, and Mackinac counties. Exhibit 16
summarizes the ranking of Michigan counties by the number of pleasure trip visits.
36
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 16
Distribution of Tourist Visits to Michigan, 1996–2003
Total trips in sample
Total trips in sample
County Number Percentage Rank County Number Percentage Rank
Wayne 525 9.9% 1 Ontonagon 38 0.7% 41
Grand Traverse 328 6.2 2 Benzie 37 0.7 44
Saginaw 238 4.5 3 Houghton 37 0.7 44
Mackinac 226 4.3 4 Leelanau 37 0.7 44
Oakland 206 3.9 5 Midland 32 0.6 47
Kent 173 3.3 6 Bay 31 0.6 48
Berrien 157 3.0 7 Lake 31 0.6 48
Chippewa 157 3.0 7 Branch 29 0.5 50
Ingham 150 2.8 9 Ogemaw 29 0.5 50
Cheboygan 146 2.8 10 Mecosta 28 0.5 52
Isabella 146 2.8 10 Keweenaw 27 0.5 53
Washtenaw 130 2.5 12 Lenawee 25 0.5 54
Ottawa 111 2.1 13 Livingston 25 0.5 54
Emmet 101 1.9 14 Monroe 25 0.5 54
Muskegon 96 1.8 15 Montmorency 25 0.5 54
Allegan 93 1.8 16 Iron 22 0.4 58
Jackson 92 1.7 17 Baraga 21 0.4 59
Kalamazoo 89 1.7 18 Alcona 20 0.4 60
Charlevoix 80 1.5 19 Montcalm 19 0.4 61
Marquette 78 1.5 20 Arenac 18 0.3 62
Mason 75 1.4 21 Luce 18 0.3 62
St Clair 75 1.4 21 Newaygo 18 0.3 62
Roscommon 72 1.4 23 Oscoda 18 0.3 62
Gogebic 68 1.3 24 Hillsdale 17 0.3 66
Genesee 67 1.3 25 Menominee 17 0.3 66
Otsego 67 1.3 25 Shiawassee 15 0.3 68
Macomb 63 1.2 27 Missaukee 14 0.3 69
Delta 61 1.2 28 Schoolcraft 14 0.3 69
Iosco 59 1.1 29 Presque Isle 13 0.2 71
Van Buren 59 1.1 29 Sanilac 13 0.2 71
Manistee 55 1.0 31 Gratiot 11 0.2 73
Wexford 48 0.9 32 Lapeer 11 0.2 73
Calhoun 47 0.9 33 Gladwin 10 0.2 75
Crawford 46 0.9 34 Kalkaska 10 0.2 75
Oceana 45 0.8 35 St Joseph 10 0.2 75
Alger 41 0.8 36 Ionia 9 0.2 78
Alpena 40 0.8 37 Eaton 7 0.1 79
Huron 40 0.8 37 Barry 6 0.1 80
Clare 39 0.7 39 Osceola 5 0.1 81
Dickinson 39 0.7 39 Clinton 4 0.1 82
Antrim 38 0.7 41 Tuscola 3 0.1 83
Cass 38 0.7 41
SOURCE: Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC), Michigan Travel
Market Survey.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 37

PURPOSE OF VISITS
Water-based activities do not figure prominently among the primary reasons people visit
Oakland County. In fact, nobody surveyed indicated that a water-based recreation activity
was the primary reason for visiting Oakland County. One survey respondent cited fishing
as a secondary purpose for a visit. This does not mean that Oakland County’s water
resources are unimportant to tourists taking a pleasure trip (i.e., overnight or trips farther
than 50 miles from home). It means only that they are not a principal reason for visits to
the county.
The survey data suggest that visiting friends and relatives is the single most important
reason for pleasure travel to Oakland County. Almost 36 percent of respondents said this
was their primary or secondary reason for visiting. Other important reasons include
shopping; events (including fairs, festivals, and tournaments); relaxation; vacation; and
personal events such as weddings, anniversaries, and honeymoons. Together these six
reasons motivated over 80 percent of visits to the county. Exhibit 17 summarizes the
primary and secondary reasons for respondents’ visits to Oakland County.
38
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 17
Purpose of Visiting Oakland County
SOURCE: Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC), Michigan Travel
Market Survey.
TOURIST ACTIVITIES IN OAKLAND COUNTY
While most tourists do not visit Oakland County explicitly for the purpose of outdoor
recreation, many use the county’s recreational resources during their visits. Over 40
percent of survey respondents who visited Oakland County reported engaging in some
outdoor activity on their trip. Exhibit 18 summarizes respondents’ activities in Oakland
County. Even though a larger proportion of people engage in general touring, dining,
visiting attractions, and nightlife, many also engage in outdoor recreation. Among the
estimated 394,514 pleasure trips to Oakland County in 2007, an estimated 161,000
involved outdoor recreation.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 39

EXHIBIT 18
Activities of Visitors to Oakland County
SOURCE: Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC), Michigan Travel
Market Survey.
Water-based activities are among the most popular outdoor activities. Activities directly
dependent on water (swimming, fishing, boating, etc.) account for 40 percent of outdoor
recreation activities and 20 percent of pleasure trip visitors engage in such activities.
Furthermore, many other activities may be enhanced by water. Exhibit 19 summarizes
respondents’ participation in specific outdoor recreation activities. The grey bars in the
chart represent activities that depend directly on water (swimming, fishing, boating,
beach use, jet skiing, paddle boating, ice skating, and canoeing). An estimated 78,000
visitor households engaged in water-based recreation in Oakland County in 2007.
40
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 19
Outdoor Activities of Visitors to Oakland County
SOURCE: Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC), Michigan Travel
Market Survey.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WATER-BASED TOURISM
The local economic impact of a specific tourist activity comprises the money tourists
spend in the local area as they pursue the activity, the jobs that spending supports, and the
secondary economic activity resulting from spending and employment (for example,
income to businesses that support tourist-dependent businesses or local economic impacts
associated with the spending of tourist-dependent wages).
Two problems emerge when trying to estimate the economic impact of water-based
tourism in Oakland County from the Michigan Travel Market Survey data. First, virtually
no survey respondents cited water-based recreation as either the primary or the secondary
reason for their pleasure trip to Oakland County. This implies that even though many
pleasure trip visitors engaged in water-based recreation while they were in the county,
they would likely have made the trip whether or not they engaged in water-based
recreation. Therefore, much of their spending on lodging, food, fuel, and other things
cannot be attributed to water-based recreation. Second, spending directly attributable to
water-based recreation activities (such as boat rentals, boat fuel, food, picnic supplies for
a trip to the beach) can be counted as an economic impact of water-based recreation even
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 41

if the primary purpose of the trip was for something else. However, it is not possible to
identify water-based recreation spending from the Michigan Travel Market Survey data
because the survey did not collect spending data for individual activities. Original
research to estimate spending by activity is beyond the scope of this study.
Even though it is not possible to estimate the economic impact of tourism attributable
solely to visits conditioned on Oakland County’s water resources, the survey data, as well
as other sources, provide estimates of overall tourist spending in Oakland County. These
estimates provide some evidence of the importance of tourism to Oakland County’s
economy.
First, the Michigan Travel Market Survey, which provided the data for the preceding
analysis of pleasure trip activity, collected data on total trip expenditures incurred at the
main trip destination. Respondents who listed Oakland County as their primary pleasure
trip destination reported spending an average of $448 per party per trip (in 2007 dollars).
Summed over the estimated 394,514 pleasure trips to Oakland County during 2007, this
amounts to an estimated $177 million in annual spending. This figure almost certainly
understates tourism spending because it includes only visits by residents of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Ontario and excludes trips from
within a 50-mile radius.
Michigan State University (CARRS 2002) estimated total tourism spending in Oakland
County in 2000 at $949 million ($1,143 million in 2007 dollars). The estimate draws on
data on airline passenger arrivals, lodging inventory data, hotel room tax assessments,
hotel vacancy rates, and other secondary data. It includes air travel expenses to and from
Michigan and also appears to include business travel. Thus, it almost certainly overstates
tourism spending when tourism is limited to pleasure travel. It does, however, include
visitors from all locations.
While these spending estimates provide some indication of the importance of tourism to
Oakland County’s economy, they do not provide the level of detail necessary to attribute
any of the spending to water resources. Based on the 2001 Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, the U.S. Department of Interior estimated that sport
anglers in Michigan spent an average of $642 annually ($752 in 2007 dollars) on fishingrelated
expenses in 2001 (USDOI 2003). Oakland County almost certainly captures some
of this spending based on the estimated 23,670 annual pleasure trips that involve fishing.
It would be a mistake, however, to attribute all of this expenditure to water resources in
Oakland County because fishing is rarely the primary purpose of pleasure trips to the
county.
Based on the 1996 Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,
Michigan attracted an estimated 2,144,000 non-resident anglers in 1996, the eighth
highest ranked fishing destination state in the country (Ditton et al. 2002). Given its
concentration of lakes and proximity to major metropolitan areas, Oakland County almost
certainly captures some of this visitation and the associated spending and economic
impact.
42
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

CONCLUSIONS
The Michigan Travel Market Survey did not provide sufficient data to reliably estimate
the economic impact of water-based tourist activity in Oakland County. A primary
difficulty is that few pleasure trip tourists appear to visit Oakland County specifically to
engage in water-based recreation. Although many engage in water-based recreation as
part of their trip, because this is not the primary purpose, it is difficult to determine what
portion of trip expenditures to attribute to the presence of water resources in Oakland
County.
Despite the difficulty in estimating economic impact, about 40 percent of tourists to the
county engage in outdoor recreation during their visit. In doing so, they undoubtedly
spend some money within the county in pursuit of water-based recreation. The fact that
an estimated 78,000 pleasure trip visits to Oakland County in 2007 involved water-based
recreation implies that it likely had a non-trivial economic impact even if the data do not
exist to estimate it.
For reference, annual tourism spending in Oakland County likely lies between $177
million and $1.1 billion. Given the level of water-based recreation among pleasure trip
visitors, some of this spending is almost certainly attributable to the county’s water
resources. Anglers in Michigan spend an estimated $752 annually to pursue their sport.
Given the level of fishing effort among pleasure trip visitors (i.e., an estimated 23,670
annual pleasure trips that involve fishing in 2007), Oakland County almost certainly
captures some of this spending and enjoys the associated economic impact.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 43

The Value of Ecosystem Services Associated
with Oakland County’s Water Resources
INTRODUCTION
An oft-cited 1997 article (Costanza et al. 1997) estimated the economic value of the
Earth’s ecosystem services at about $33 trillion annually. 17 Water resources contribute a
majority of the value, with marine ecosystems responsible for about 63 percent of the
total value and freshwater ecosystems, i.e., wetlands, rivers, streams, and lakes, about 20
percent. Freshwater wetlands, in particular, produce ecosystem services worth an
estimated $6.9 trillion (in 2007 dollars) annually.
Ecosystem services are defined as “the wide range of conditions and processes through
which natural ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, help sustain and fulfill
human life” (Daily et al. 1997). Costanza et al. (1997) defined 17 categories of ecosystem
services: gas regulation, climate regulation, disturbance regulation, water regulation,
water supply, erosion control and sediment retention, soil formation, nutrient cycling,
waste treatment, pollination, biological control, habitat, food production, raw materials,
genetic resources, recreation, and cultural. These services maintain biodiversity; produce
ecosystem goods like game, timber, and crops; and ultimately sustain human life.
Oakland County’s water resources have value as part of the Earth’s ecosystem. Because
ecosystems generally function on a large scale and in interaction with other ecosystems, it
is not always possible to assign meaningful ecosystem service values to portions of
ecosystems that fall within arbitrary political boundaries. This report reviews sources of
ecosystem services associated with freshwater resources; presents estimates of economic
values associated with these services; and, when possible, estimates the values produced
by Oakland County’s water resources.
KEY FINDINGS
• Oakland County’s substantial and varied freshwater resources likely produce
substantial ecosystem services. Many of these services accrue primarily to Oakland
County residents and other residents of the five watersheds of which Oakland County
is the source.
• Oakland County’s water resources produce an estimated $806 million in ecosystem
services annually, $167 million attributable to 34,600 acres of lakes and ponds and
$639 million stemming from 56,400 acres of wetlands.
• Three services (disturbance regulation values associated with wetlands, water supply
values of wetlands, and water regulation values of lakes and rivers) account for
almost three-quarters of the total value of freshwater ecosystem services in the
county.
17 In 1994 dollars. The current value (in 2007 dollars) is $46 trillion (based on CPI of 444.0 in 1994 and
621.1 in 2007, 1967=100, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index,
http://www.bls.gov/CPI/).
44
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Costanza et al. (1997) identify ten specific ecosystem services provided by or influenced
by freshwater resources, i.e., wetlands, rivers, and lakes. Exhibit 20 summarizes these
services and their functions and provides some examples.
EXHIBIT 20
Ecosystem Services Provided or Influenced by Freshwater Resources
Service Function Examples from water ecosystems
Gas regulation Regulation of atmospheric chemical
composition
Removal of atmospheric carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxide by wetlands
Disturbance Damping ecosystem response to Flood control provided by wetlands
regulation environmental fluctuations
Water regulation Regulation of hydrological flows Maintaining sufficient flows of water
for irrigation, industrial, or
transportation use
Water supply Storage and retention of water Providing water for human use such
as municipal water supply
Waste treatment Recovery of nutrients and removal or
breakdown of other wastes
Tertiary treatment of municipal
wastewater by wetlands
Habitat/refugia Habitat for resident or transient
populations
Habitat for fish and migratory
waterfowl
Food production Production of animal or vegetable
food for human consumption
Production of fish and waterdependent
wildlife
Raw materials Production of raw materials Raw materials produced by
freshwater ecosystems like lumber
from wooded wetlands or peat
Recreation Provision of recreational opportunities Sport fishing, boating, swimming
Cultural
SOURCE: Costanza et al., 1997.
Provision of opportunities for noncommercial
uses
Aesthetic, educational, or quality-oflife
values of water
The remainder of this section briefly reviews the mechanisms by which freshwater
ecosystems provide these services. The boundaries between different ecosystems and
between different ecosystem services are not particularly distinct. For instance, water
regulation services depend not only on freshwater resources (i.e., lakes, rivers, and
wetlands) but also on the vegetation and soils within a watershed. Therefore, although the
following discussion of ecosystem services focuses primarily on those associated with
freshwater ecosystems, it necessarily covers other ecosystems as well.
Several studies comprehensively review the ecosystem services provided by freshwater
resources. 18 The following summaries, organized by ecosystem services, draw largely
from these previous studies.
18 Brauman et al. (2007); Daily et al. (1997); Postel and Carpenter (1997); Ewel (1997); Farber and
Costanza (1987); and Wilson and Carpenter (1999).
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 45

Climate regulation—Costanza, et al. (1997) do not include climate regulation among the
ecosystem services to which lakes, rivers, and wetlands contribute. However, water
bodies do help moderate temperature extremes within a local region or microclimate.
Michigan’s fruit industry is an example of an economic benefit associated with the
moderating effect of the Great Lakes on local climates. Large water bodies also have
moderating effects on urban microclimates, thereby reducing heating and cooling costs
relative to what they would be without the presence of water (Bolund and Hunhammar
1999; Hawkins 2003). Microclimate regulation is a local, rather than global, ecosystem
service. Oakland County is thus likely to capture most of the microclimate regulation
benefits associated with its lakes and wetlands.
Gas regulation—Wetlands contribute to atmospheric gas regulation by removing carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere (Hawkins 2003). The
benefits of gas regulation services are largely global in nature although there may also be
localized impacts within an airshed.
Disturbance regulation—Wetlands retain water from heavy rainfall events and release it
slowly to rivers and streams. Functioning floodplain wetlands are particularly effective at
retaining water, slowing its flow, and ameliorating downstream flooding. In fact, one
study concluded that a relatively small area of wetland could have largely prevented the
flooding along the Mississippi River in 1993 and the associated property damage (Daily
et al. 1997). By slowing the flow of water, floodplain wetlands also allow sediments to
settle out of the water in the floodplain rather than being washed into reservoirs, bays, or
oceans where the resulting siltation can reduce reservoir volumes, clog shipping
channels, and cover habitats. In an urban setting, wetlands and lakes provide a buffer to
the increased runoff of rainwater associated with a greater area of impervious surfaces
(Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). Disturbance regulation benefits are largely specific to a
watershed. Disturbance regulation is likely a particularly valuable ecosystem service
provided in Oakland County because it contains the headwaters of five major rivers.
Water regulation—Water regulation services regulate hydrological flows. Lakes and
rivers contribute to maintaining water flows. Wetlands also help regulate flows by
recharging streams and aquifers (Hawkins 2003). Maintenance of adequate flows is
important for providing reliable supplies of water to maintain habitats and for industrial
and agricultural uses. Downstream water users throughout the five watersheds that
originate in Oakland County share in the benefits of the water regulation services
provided by Oakland County’s lakes, rivers, and wetlands (Brauman et al. 2007).
Water supply—Water supply services are perhaps one of the most obvious freshwater
ecosystem services. Freshwater ecosystems (i.e., lakes, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater
aquifers which, in many cases, depend on surface waters) provide water for consumptive
use. These uses include municipal water supply, industrial use, and irrigation. Lakes,
rivers, and wetlands contribute to water supply by storing water. Wetlands also contribute
to the water supply by removing contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides, nitrogen,
and phosphorus, thus making water more suitable for human use (Hawkins 2003).
Ecosystems that provide clean municipal water prevent the cost of municipal water
treatment. Water supply services are largely regional in nature and Oakland County
46
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

shares these values associated with its water resources with other communities with
which it shares its watersheds.
Waste treatment—Waste treatment services refer to the ability of freshwater ecosystems
to dilute, assimilate, capture, or break down waste products such as excess nutrients and
other contaminants. Freshwater bodies can serve to dilute pollutants to levels that do not
pose a risk to humans and wildlife (Postel and Carpenter 1997; Hawkins 2003). In urban
settings, wetlands can help absorb some of the pollutants associated with urban runoff as
well as the increased amount of nutrient waste from urban landscapes (Bolund and
Hunhammar 1999). Wetlands can also provide a final level of tertiary treatment for
municipal wastewater, thus avoiding the substantial cost of providing such treatment
within a treatment plant. In a long-term experiment in Michigan, a large wetland has
retained almost all of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus discharged to it
from the municipal waste of a community of about 5,000 (Ewel 1997). One measure of
the economic value of such services is the difference in the cost of treating the
wastewater in a wetland (including any costs associated with changing the wetland
ecosystem) versus the costs of treatment in a treatment plant. Waste treatment services
are local or regional in nature, accruing largely to local communities but also to those
downstream.
Habitat—Freshwater resources provide habitat for fish and aquatic organisms and,
indirectly, for waterfowl and many other animals that depend on water. Wetlands and the
littoral vegetation zones of lakes are particularly valuable as nurseries for young fish
(Hawkins 2003). Habitat values are likely particularly important in light of the popularity
of wildlife watching and fishing in conjunction with Oakland County’s water resources.
The Household Recreation Survey conducted by PSC estimates that 47 percent of county
households visit a water resource at least once per year to view wildlife and 24 percent
report fishing. Furthermore, the PSC study concludes that each year, 23,220 pleasure trip
visitors to Oakland County fish during their visit. Except for those associated with
migratory waterfowl, the habitat benefits of Oakland County’s freshwater ecosystems are
captured largely by Oakland County residents and visitors.
Food production—Lakes, rivers, and wetlands produce marketable goods that directly
benefit people. Examples include fish, waterfowl, and crops (Daily et al. 1997). Oakland
County’s water resources probably do not contribute greatly to commercial production of
fish or waterfowl. Similarly, they probably contribute little to crop production, both
because Oakland County has little farmland and because much of that farmland is not
irrigated.
Raw material—Wetlands produce some raw materials to production processes.
Examples from freshwater swamps in Michigan include peat and timber. Michigan was
the largest peat producer in 1974 and Oakland County had two peat operations (Walden
1976).
Recreation—A study from Stockholm, Sweden, suggests that recreational services
associated with natural ecosystems are perhaps the most highly valued ecosystem
services in urban areas (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). The authors state that “the
recreational aspects of all urban ecosystems, with possibilities to play and rest, are
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 47

perhaps the highest valued ecosystem service in cities.” They also claim that the
recreational and cultural benefits of natural ecosystems in urban environments contribute
substantially to quality of life and the ability to attract a high-quality workforce. 19 Waterbased
recreation is certainly valuable in Michigan, which ranks fourth among all states in
registered boats (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2007), fifth in licensed anglers
(American Sportfishing Association 2008), eighth in its ability to attract out-of-state
anglers (Ditton, Holland, and Anderson, 2002), and fifth in fishing-related expenditures
(American Sportfishing Association 2008). The Household Recreation Survey conducted
by PSC in Oakland County concludes that 85 percent of households engage in waterbased
recreation sometime during a typical year. Specific water-based recreational
activities included swimming, fishing, boating, and wildlife viewing.
Cultural—The Household Recreation Survey conducted by PSC in Oakland County
reveals that many county residents value the county’s water resources because of their
contribution to the aesthetics of the landscape, the serenity of the area, and general
quality of life. Many survey respondents also cited the environmental benefits of water
resources. These characteristics of freshwater ecosystems may be particularly important
in urban areas where people value the opportunity to slow down, relax, and relieve stress
(Hawkins 2003).
ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED
BY OAKLAND COUNTY’S WATER RESOURCES
Costanza et al. (1997) estimated economic values for 17 ecosystem services produced by
16 different ecosystems. At a per acre value of $11,325, freshwater wetlands are the
second most valuable ecosystem behind coastal estuaries, which have a value of $12,927
per acre. 20 Summed over their entire area on the Earth, freshwater wetlands account for
9.7 percent of an estimated $46 trillion total annual value of all ecosystem services. Lakes
and rivers, the other major freshwater ecosystem, account for 5.1 percent. Exhibit 21
summarizes estimates of the average per acre value for the ten services to which
freshwater ecosystems (i.e., lakes/rivers and swamps/floodplains) contribute worldwide.
19 This is addressed for Oakland County in the Business Attraction and Retention section.
20 Original values converted from 1994 dollars per hectare to 2007 dollars per acre using a conversion
factor of 1 hectare=2.471 acres and the CPI as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, all urban consumers, city average, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.
48
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 21
Ecosystem Service Values, Worldwide
Value
Ecosystem
(2007 dollars/acre/year)
service Ecosystem function Wetlands Lakes/rivers
Gas regulation Regulation of atmospheric chemical
$161 —
composition
Disturbance Damping ecosystem response to
4,099 —
regulation environmental fluctuations
Water regulation Regulating hydrological flows 17 $3,083
Water supply Storage and retention of water 4,416 1,199
Waste treatment Removing or breaking down waste
1,053 388
products
Habitat/refugia Providing habitat for resident and
249 —
transient populations
Food production Production of plant and animal food 27 23
Raw materials Provision of extractable raw materials 28
Recreation Providing opportunities for recreation 278 130
Cultural
Providing opportunities for noncommercial
uses
997 —
Total $11,325 $4,823
SOURCE: Costanza et al., 1997.
Estimates of ecosystem service values are rough for a number of reasons including the
following (Daily et al. 2000; Hawkins 2003):
• Few ecosystem services have observable market values, so non-market techniques
must often be used to obtain estimates and there are still professional debates about
the validity of the techniques used. 21 Even when market prices are available, they
may not accurately reflect the true value of an ecosystem service because they do not
include subsidies or externalities, there may be many market prices for the same
service, and market prices do not reflect ethical issues of the equitable distribution of
services across different populations.
• Knowledge of the services provided by ecosystems is incomplete. Accurate estimates
of value are not possible if the full range of services is unknown. Furthermore,
individuals may not be aware of ecosystem services, or they may take them for
granted. When individuals are unaware of ecosystem services, market prices or values
derived from non-market techniques will not fully reflect ecosystem service values.
• Different individuals, or groups of individuals, may place different values on an
ecosystem. Aggregating individual values to a total value requires value judgments
about how to weight individual values. Many ecosystem services are essential to
21 Non-market valuation techniques include travel cost, hedonic price (i.e., separating the price of an
amenity from observed market prices for a good that accesses the amenity, for example, estimating the
value of lake frontage from the market price of lakefront homes), and contingent valuation. See Freeman
(1993) and Mitchell and Carson (1989) for descriptions of these methods.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 49

human existence and thus have immense value to future generations. There are
questions about how to appropriately weight future values for such services.
• Many ecosystem services are interdependent. It is therefore not always possible to
simply add service values to obtain a total value. Furthermore, exploiting one service
of an ecosystem may limit the provision of other services.
• Values often depend on location and time. For example, a wetland may have a
different value in a different location or at a different time. Thus, values estimated for
one wetland may not necessarily apply to another.
• Ecosystem services apply to very different scales. Some (such as climate regulation)
are global in nature while others (for example, water supply) may have more
localized impacts and benefits.
Despite these deficiencies, the value estimates displayed in Exhibit 21 provide useful
estimates of the relative magnitudes of ecosystem service values associated with different
ecosystems.
Based on the values shown in Exhibit 21, Oakland County’s water resources produce
$806 million in ecosystem services annually, with $167 million attributable to 34,600
acres of lakes and ponds and $639 million stemming from 56,400 acres of wetlands.
Exhibit 22 computes estimates of the ecosystem service values associated with Oakland
County’s wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Disturbance regulation values associated with
wetlands (primarily from flood control benefits), water supply values of wetlands, and
water regulation values of lakes and rivers account for almost three-quarters of the total
value of freshwater ecosystem services in the county.
Given that recreational and cultural values may be higher in urban areas than for the
average over all water resources, the estimates of Exhibit 22 may understate these values
to Oakland County. All of the values in Exhibit 22 assume that the freshwater ecosystems
of Oakland County are still in a state to perform these functions; this is not necessarily a
valid assumption in a largely urban area. For instance, the water regulation values
associated with wetlands likely reflect primarily the flood control values associated with
floodplains. If the floodplains have been separated from adjacent rives by development,
they may no longer perform water regulation functions.
50
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 22
Aggregate Ecosystem Service Values Associated with
Oakland County's Water Resources
Aggregate values (2007 dollars, millions)
Wetlands
Lakes/rivers
Ecosystem service Value % of total Value % of total
Gas regulation $9.1 1.1% — —
Disturbance regulation 231.2 28.7 — —
Water regulation 1.0 0.1 $106.7 13.2%
Water supply 249.1 30.9 41.5 5.2
Waste treatment 59.4 7.4 13.4 1.7
Habitat/refugia 14.0 1.7 — —
Food production 1.5 0.2 0.8 0.1
Raw materials 1.6 0.2 — —
Recreation 15.7 1.9 4.5 0.6
Cultural 56.2 7.0 — —
Total $638.8 79.2% $166.9 20.8%
SOURCE: Values derived from Costanza, et al., 1997.
CONCLUSIONS
Oakland County’s substantial freshwater resources produce, or have the potential to
produce, an estimated $806 million in annual ecosystem services. Based on crude global
per acre average values, the most valuable of these services appear to be disturbance
regulation, water regulation, and water supply. The estimates may, however, understate
recreational and cultural values. Many of these values accrue primarily to Oakland
County residents and those living downstream in the five major watersheds to which
Oakland County’s wetlands, lakes, and rivers contribute. The value estimates are also
conditioned on Oakland County’s freshwater ecosystems still being able to perform their
ecosystem service functions, which is not necessarily a safe assumption in a largely urban
area.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 51

INTRODUCTION
Oakland County Business Location and
Employee Attraction/Retention Survey
The New Economy and Quality of Life Amenity
The “New Economy” refers to the innovation- and knowledge-based, global,
entrepreneurial economy that has steadily replaced the old, labor-based, manufacturing
economy in the United States over the past decade. Sectors within the New Economy
include knowledge-based industries such as information technology, health care,
biotechnology, robotics, advanced manufacturing, and alternative energy development.
These industries are more technology driven than the old, resource- and infrastructuredriven
manufacturing economy, so companies and workers have more freedom to choose
their location. To attract and retain highly educated, skilled, and mobile New Economy
workers, communities must pursue an “innovation-based” economic development
strategy that targets resources to attract high-skill job sectors (such as R&D abatements)
and emphasizes a good quality of life to attract and retain knowledge workers (Kaufmann
Foundation 2008).
Economist Richard Florida further emphasizes this point. He found that the traditional
lens of job creation no longer applies universally—jobs do not necessarily attract workers
to a state (NGA 2005). Rather, people chose the region where they would like to live and
then look for jobs in those regions. Quality-of-life factors have been shown to be as
important as traditional economic factors, such as jobs and career opportunity, in
attracting highly mobile knowledge workers who are willing to relocate for social,
cultural, and economic amenities. Perhaps Richard Karlgaard, publisher of Forbes,
summed it up best in his article, “Where to get rich”: “The most valuable natural resource
in the 21st century is brains. Smart people tend to be mobile. Watch where they go,
because where they go, robust economic activity will follow (Karlgaard 2003).”
Traditional economic development strategies place less emphasis on quality-of-life
amenities and more on intergovernmental competition for low-skill manufacturing jobs,
which usually require local tax abatement. Such efforts were highly successful in
building a robust manufacturing-based economy in southeast Michigan. As the national
and global economy has shifted, however, Michigan’s residents and communities have
found themselves challenged to respond. Manufacturing still comprises a much larger
share of Michigan’s economy than the national average (Ballard 2006). Thus, during this
transition Michigan can be expected to suffer more pain, proportionally, than the nation
as a whole. The 2008 crisis surrounding the Big Three domestic automakers emphasizes
this vulnerability.
According to Michigan Future, the data show that Michigan is lagging in the transition to
a knowledge-based economy. In 2006 Michigan ranked 26th in per capita income, an
unprecedented drop of 10 places in a relatively short six year period. It ranked 37th in the
share of wages from knowledge-based industries and 34th in proportion of adults with a
bachelor’s or higher degree. In 2005 (latest data available) metro Detroit still ranked 15th
52
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

in per capita income. Of 53 metropolitan areas with populations of one million or more,
the Detroit region ranked 38th in concentration of knowledge-based industries and 37th
in college attainment (Michigan Future 2006).
To meet the challenge of the New Economy, southeast Michigan must be a place that is
attractive to knowledge workers. Fortunately, southeast Michigan is rich in the qualityof-life
amenities these workers desire. Oakland County boasts an extensive green
infrastructure network combined with historic towns, vibrant communities and
educational institutions. The underlying fabric is in place; sound planning and savvy
marketing can leverage these resources into an integral component of an economic
development strategy targeting the New Economy.
Existing Literature Review
A large body of literature dating back to the early 1980s documents the importance of
quality-of-life factors to firm location decisions, particularly for firms for which
employees are more important than location-specific factors. In general, the literature
concludes that business-oriented factors such as proximity to customers, labor and costs,
and transportation are more important than quality-of-life factors in location decisions.
However, some types of firms (those that are less location-dependent and for whom
attracting and retaining a high-quality work force are important) tend to place more
importance on quality-of-life factors than do other types of firms. These firms are often
entrepreneurial in nature and within the New Economy sectors.
Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey
Public Sector Consultants (PSC) designed and administered the Oakland County
Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey to assess the importance of
quality-of-life factors in firms’ decisions to locate in the county. The survey also explored
the perceived impact of these factors on firms’ ability to attract employees to Oakland
County.
METHODOLOGY
Oakland County personnel selected a sample of 719 businesses to participate in the
survey—507 members of Automation Alley, a technology business association, and 212
businesses referred by the county’s Planning & Economic Development Services (PEDS)
office. The PEDS office reports 36,759 firms as of the third quarter of 2006 (Oakland
County PEDS 2007). Survey recipients thus represent a non-random sample of about 2.0
percent of the county’s businesses.
PSC developed the Web-based survey questionnaire from a review of relevant literature
and with feedback from the PEDS office. Potential respondents received an e-mail
invitation to participate in the survey on June 3, 2008, followed by reminders on June 23
and June 30. The survey closed on July 4, 2008. All communications about the survey
were addressed from Oakland County PEDS personnel. Appendix B contains the
complete text of the questionnaire, survey responses, the invitation, and the reminders.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 53

As of the closing date, 217 respondents had completed the survey yielding a response rate
of 29 percent. The two sub-samples—Automation Alley and others—had virtually
identical response rates.
KEY FINDINGS
• A substantial proportion of firms felt that access to parks, trails, and paths (34
percent); access to water-based recreation (23 percent); and proximity to natural areas
(18 percent) were at least of moderate importance in their decision to locate in
Oakland County.
• Similarly, green infrastructure affected many firms’ perceived ability to attract and
retain a high-quality workforce. More than half (59 percent) said that access to parks,
trails, and paths influenced recruiting and retention; 54 percent said that access to
water-based recreation was at least moderately important in recruiting; and 49 percent
said the same of proximity to natural areas.
• Although green infrastructure factors were important to many firms, even more firms
ranked business-oriented factors (proximity to customers, labor and costs, access to
transportation, and government support) and community factors (quality of schools,
safety, housing costs) as important factors for business location decision-making.
• While New Economy firms (such as financial, health, information, and professional
services) and smaller firms (fewer than 20 employees) also ranked business-oriented
and community factors as more important than green infrastructure to location
decisions and recruiting, they placed a greater importance on many green
infrastructure factors than did other types of firms.
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
As might be expected of a non-random sample, respondents do not appear to represent
the mix of businesses in Oakland County. Survey respondents overrepresent some sectors
and underrepresent others relative to the number of businesses in the separate sectors.
The greatest differences between respondents and all businesses are that respondents
overrepresent the “information” sector (15.6 percent of respondents versus 2.6 percent of
businesses), underrepresent “leisure and hospitality” (0.5 percent of respondents versus
8.3 percent of businesses), and underrepresent “education and health services” (1.4
percent of respondents versus 12.8 percent of businesses). 22
Exhibit 23 summarizes the sector composition of respondents relative to all county
businesses. All differences are significant at not less than the 90 percent confidence level
and most are significant at 99 percent. 23 Overrepresented sectors include professional and
business services, financial activities, manufacturing, and information. Sectors that are
22 Sector definitions for both data sources are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS). The questionnaire contained in the Appendix B includes a more
complete description of the sectors. Oakland County’s data combined the information and services sectors.
Exhibit 23 uses BLS data from the 2002 Economic Census (http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/
guide/02EC_MI.HTM) as an estimate of the number of information sector businesses in Oakland County.
23 A 90, 95, or 99 percent confidence level means that we can be 90, 95, or 99 percent sure, respectively,
that the composition of the sample is different from the composition of the population of all businesses.
This is not unexpected in a non-random sample and it does not affect the analysis.
54
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

underrepresented in survey responses include construction, services 24 , education and
health services, and leisure and hospitality. This is not surprising given that 70 percent of
the sample consisted of members of Automation Alley, a technology business
association.
EXHIBIT 23
Sector Composition of Respondents Relative to All County Businesses
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
On average, survey respondents had 115 employees while the average over all businesses
in the county is 17. It is clear that respondents greatly overrepresent large firms relative to
small firms.
The lack of a representative random sample means that survey results cannot be reliably
projected onto the population as a whole. Nevertheless, the survey does provide some
useful information about the factors that contribute to firms’ decisions to locate in
Oakland County and how those factors affect recruitment and retention of employees.
24 The data provided by Oakland County aggregates the “services” and “information” sectors. Data from
the BLS suggests that survey data greatly overrepresent the information sector, which implies that although
the exact extent of the underrepresentation is unknown, the data greatly underrepresent the services sector.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 55

FACTORS AFFECTING LOCATION DECISIONS AND EMPLOYEE
ATTRACTION AND RETENTION
Many studies dating back to the early 1980s view of quality of life as a “would-like”
factor that takes a back seat to “must-have” features of a location (Salvesen and Renski
2003). However, for firms whose financial performance depends more on their
employees and the quality of those employees (e.g., highly educated, creative) than on
proximity to markets, inputs, or customers, quality-of-life factors may be closer to “musthaves”
if these firms wish to attract and retain the high-quality employees who are critical
to their success.
Key findings from the literature include the following:
• A survey of 174 firms in Colorado that had relocated within the past five years
examined the impact of quality-of-life elements on the location decision (Love and
Crompton 1999). Quality-of-life factors (e.g., recreation opportunities, cultural and
entertainment opportunities, ambiance, proximity to natural areas, proximity to
colleges/universities, quality of primary/secondary education) ranked consistently
behind labor and cost issues (e.g., availability, skills, and cost of labor) and behind
daily living concerns (e.g., crime rate, personal safety, housing costs, access to
transportation). In general, smaller firms, firms that identified themselves as relatively
footloose (i.e., firms whose performance depends more on employees than on
location), and those that employed more professionals ranked quality-of-life factors
higher than did other firms.
• Florida (2002b) contends that regions that can attract the “creative class” do better
economically (i.e., have higher levels of high-tech industries, innovation, human
capital, and employment growth) than do regions dominated by the working class.
The author empirically tests his hypotheses (Florida 2002a) and finds that quality-oflife
factors (i.e., diversity, climate, and recreational opportunities) are not consistently
associated with where the creative class chooses to locate. Focus group discussions,
however, suggest that creative people are drawn to vibrant music scenes or outdoor
recreation amenities not well associated with the specific empirical measures
employed in the study. Diversity (locations where people from any background, race,
ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation can find a community) was the only qualityof-life
indicator that was consistently important in location decisions of the creative
class.
• A review of many empirical studies on business location (Gottlieb 1994) concludes
that a location’s recreational amenities often rank in the top half of a list of factors
that influence location choice. Proximity of housing (commuting time/cost), cultural
amenities, and quality of primary/secondary education typically ranked higher than
recreational amenities. An empirical study by the same author (Gottlieb 1995) found
that business and crime variables were more important determinants of the density of
employees of engineering and management establishments (a proxy for elite workers)
than were recreational amenities.
• A largely qualitative investigation of the location decision processes of 40 companies
(O'Mara 1999) found evidence that the quality-of-life factors that most influenced a
firm’s location decision were those that had a direct effect on employees’ daily lives.
56
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

These included housing quality, ease of commuting, and the area’s scenic amenities.
The quality of public schools, proximity to colleges/universities, and access to public
institutions such as libraries, parks, and sports venues were also important.
The Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey
focused on identifying the influence of quality-of-life factors, and particularly
recreational and water resources, on firms’ decisions to locate in Oakland County and on
their perceived ability to attract and retain employees. The literature suggests that these
factors are more important to some types of firms than to others. In particular, it suggests
that firms whose performance depends more on employees than on location place a
higher value on quality-of-life factors.
The following analysis of the survey data examines whether different types of firms place
a higher value on quality-of-life factors when making location decisions and whether they
believe these factors affect their ability to attract and retain employees. The analysis
identifies two groups of firms that might be expected to value quality-of-life factors more
highly than other firms. These include New Economy firms (i.e., the services and
information, education and health services, professional and business services, and
financial sectors) and small firms (fewer than 20 employees).
Exhibit 24 summarizes the size of each of the two sub-samples.
EXHIBIT 24
Size of Sub-samples
New Economy firms
Small firms
Number Percentage Number Percentage
No 50 23.9% 108 52.2%
Yes 159 76.1 99 47.8
Total 209 100.0% 207 100.0%
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
The survey asked respondents to indicate how important each of a number of factors was
to (a) their decision about where to locate their firm and (b) their ability to attract and
retain employees. Exhibit 25 shows the way the factors were described in the
questionnaire and the abbreviations used in the following analysis.
EXHIBIT 25
Factors Affecting Firm Location and Recruiting
Abbreviation
Natural areas
Quality of schools
Outdoor recreation
Culture and entertainment
Description
Proximity to natural areas (undeveloped parks and forests, wildlife
sanctuaries)
Quality of primary/secondary education
Availability of outdoor land-based recreational opportunities (local
parks, trails, and pathways)
Variety of cultural and entertainment opportunities
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 57

Abbreviation
Colleges and universities
Water recreation
Community
Transportation
Recreational infrastructure
Healthy downtowns
Proximity to customers
Labor and costs
Government support
Description
Proximity to colleges or universities
Water-based recreational opportunities (boating, swimming, fishing)
Community characteristics (housing costs, crime rate, public services,
public safety, diversity of residential environments)
Access to transportation (e.g., roads, airports, railways)
Community recreational infrastructure (e.g., water parks, golf courses,
swimming pools, etc.)
Healthy and vibrant downtowns and historic town centers
Proximity to customers, competitors, or suppliers
Labor and costs (wage rates, labor quality and availability, costs of land
and buildings, operating costs)
Government support for business location
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
NOTE: The question used to assess recruiting did not include the final three factors.
Importance of Quality-of-Life Factors in Firms’ Location Decisions
Exhibit 26 illustrates the relative importance of various factors hypothesized to influence
decisions about where firms choose to locate. The percentages represent the proportion of
respondents who indicated that a particular factor was at least moderately important to
their location decisions.
EXHIBIT 26
Relative Importance of Selected Factors on Firm Location Decisions
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
58
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

Exhibit 26 gives rise to several conclusions generally consistent with the previous
literature that concluded that firms place more emphasis on business-oriented factors than
on quality-of-life factors and, among quality-of-life factors, less emphasis on recreational
amenities than on community and cultural factors. Specific conclusions from the Oakland
County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey include the
following:
• Most respondents rank business-oriented factors (proximity to customers, labor and
costs, transportation, and government support) above quality-of-life factors
(community, quality of schools, colleges/universities, healthy downtowns, culture and
entertainment, recreational infrastructure, outdoor recreation, water recreation, and
natural areas) in their location decisions.
• Among quality-of-life factors, respondents generally rank recreational amenities
below community, education, and lifestyle factors.
The interesting question, however, is not how all respondents rank the factors but
whether New Economy and smaller firms consider quality-of-life factors to be more
important than do other types of firms. Exhibit 27 illustrates that the ranking remains
generally consistent across two types of firms: (1) New Economy firms and (2) smaller
firms.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 59

EXHIBIT 27
Ranking of Factors across Different Types of Firms
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
In spite of the generally consistent ranking, there are some significant differences
between the firm types. Exhibit 28 compares the relative importance of location decision
factors for (a) New Economy compared to other firms and (b) smaller versus larger
firms. 25
25 To emphasize the differences between types of firms, the percentages in Exhibit 28 reflect only those
firms for which a factor was “extremely” or “very” important. In contrast to the rest of the exhibits, it does
not include “moderately important” responses.
60
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 28
Factor Importance in Location Decisions
All
responses
Size of firm
New Economy
Less than 20 20 or more
employees employees Yes No
Proximity to customers 77.2% 70.9%** 84.0% 78.4% 75.4%
Labor & costs 61.1 51.7*** 71.2 59.2 64.1
Transportation 59.1 58.1 60.3 60.4 57.1
Community 54.3 52.9 55.7 61.4*** 42.9
Government support 47.3 46.5 48.1 42.2** 55.6
Quality of schools 40.2 43.0 37.2 45.0** 32.8
Colleges/universities 30.5 25.9* 35.4 32.0 28.1
Healthy downtowns 22.5 26.8* 17.9 24.0 20.0
Culture & entertainment 17.6 20.9 13.9 18.8 15.6
Recreational infrastructure 7.3 8.1 6.3 8.9 4.7
Outdoor recreation 4.9 7.0* 2.6 5.9 3.2
Natural areas 4.3 5.9 2.5 6.0* 1.6
Water recreation 4.3 7.1** 1.3 5.0 3.2
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
* Differences are significant at not less than the 90 percent confidence level.
** Differences are significant at not less than the 95 percent confidence level.
*** Differences are significant at not less than the 99 percent confidence level.
NOTE: New Economy firms include information, financial services, professional and business services, and education and
health services.
Key conclusions include the following:
• A significantly greater proportion of New Economy firms than other firms ranked
quality of schools, community, and natural areas as “extremely” or “very” important
in their location decisions. A significantly lower proportion ranked government
support as an important factor.
• Smaller firms placed a significantly greater emphasis on water recreation, outdoor
recreation, and healthy downtowns in their location decisions than did other firms.
They placed a significantly lower emphasis on proximity to customers, labor and
costs, and colleges/universities.
Importance of Quality-of-Life Factors in Attraction and Retention of
Employees
Respondents perceived Oakland County to compete well with other locations in southeast
Michigan as a desirable location for employees, but not particularly well against similar
metropolitan areas elsewhere in the United States. Just over half (56 percent) said that it
was “somewhat less difficult” or “much less difficult” to recruit workers to Oakland
County than to other areas of southwest Michigan. When compared with similar
metropolitan areas elsewhere in the United States, however, only 20 percent believed it
was either somewhat less or much less difficult to recruit workers to Oakland County.
As with the analysis of location decisions, the survey also asked respondents to indicate
the importance of quality-of-life factors in their ability to attract and retain employees.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 61

Exhibit 29 shows the percentage of all respondents who reported that each quality-of-life
factor was at least moderately important to their ability to attract and retain employees.
EXHIBIT 29
Relative Importance of Selected Factors on
Employee Recruitment and Retention
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
Respondents generally ranked community factors (i.e., community, transportation,
quality of schools, colleges/universities, healthy downtowns, culture and entertainment)
above recreational factors (i.e., outdoor recreation, recreational infrastructure, water
recreation, and natural areas).
Exhibit 30 compares the relative importance of quality-of-life factors on a firm’s ability
to recruit employees between (a) New Economy and other firms and (b) smaller and
larger firms.
62
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

EXHIBIT 30
Factor Importance to Recruiting
All
responses
Size of firm
New Economy
Less than 20 20 or more
employees employees Yes No
Community 73.2% 67.5%** 79.2% 70.6% 81.6%*
Transportation 65.4 62.5 68.4 65.3 65.8
Quality of schools 55.8 53.8 57.9 54.2 60.5
Colleges/universities 48.4 47.5 49.3 49.6 44.7
Healthy downtowns 42.7 49.4** 35.5 46.2 31.6*
Culture & entertainment 35.5 40.5* 30.3 36.8 31.6
Outdoor recreation 27.1 25.3 28.9 26.5 28.9
Recreational infrastructure 24.8 20.5* 29.3 26.1 21.1
Water recreation 20.3 21.8 18.7 20.9 18.4
Natural areas 16.4 17.5 15.3 17.2 13.9
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
* Differences are significant at not less than the 90 percent confidence level.
** Differences are significant at not less than the 95 percent confidence level.
*** Differences are significant at not less than the 99 percent confidence level.
NOTE: New Economy firms include information, financial services, professional and business services, and education and
health services.
Key conclusions include the following:
• Smaller firms are significantly less likely than other firms to believe that Oakland
County’s community and recreational infrastructure are important in helping them
recruit employees. They are significantly more likely than other firms to believe that
healthy downtowns and culture and entertainment are important to recruiting and
retention.
• New Economy firms are also significantly more likely than other firms to rank
healthy downtowns as important factors in helping them recruit. They are
significantly less likely to believe that community characteristics are important to
recruiting and retention. 26
Awareness of Oakland County Amenities
As shown in Exhibit 31, the survey also asked respondents how aware they were of
different amenities in Oakland County. These amenities included (a) the abundance of
lakes, (b) parks and conservation lands, (c) the trail system, and (d) downtowns and
historic town centers.
26 As in Exhibit 28, to emphasize differences between firm types, the percentages in Exhibit 30 reflect only
those firms for which a factor was “extremely” or “very” important. In contrast to the rest of the exhibits, it
does not include “moderately important” responses.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 63

EXHIBIT 31
Awareness of Oakland County Amenities
SOURCE: Public Sector Consultants Inc., Oakland County Business Location and Employee Attraction/Retention Survey,
June 2008.
Respondents were generally quite aware of the county’s amenities. Even for trails, the
amenity of which respondents were least aware, 65 percent were at least “somewhat”
aware. Respondents were generally most aware of lakes, with 62 percent saying they
were “very” aware and 28 percent claiming to be “somewhat” aware. They were less
aware of parks, with 47 percent and 39 percent, respectively, being “very” aware and
“somewhat” aware. A total of 85 percent of respondents were either “very” or
“somewhat” aware of downtowns.
CONCLUSIONS
This study largely confirms the findings reported in the literature regarding the
importance of quality-of-life factors in firms’ location decisions. In particular, firms
generally rank business-oriented factors more highly than quality-of-life factors. Among
the quality-of-life factors, firms consider those that have a direct impact on daily life
(such as community, education, or commuting) as more important than those that do not
(for example, recreational opportunities).
64
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

Reference List
American Sportfishing Association. 2008. Sportfishing in America: an economic engine
and conservation powerhouse. Alexandria, Va.: American Sportfishing
Association. [Online, accessed 7/11/08.] Available: http://www.asafishing.org/
asa/images/statistics/resources/SIA_2008.pdf.
Ballard, Charles. 2006. Michigan’s Economic Future. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan
State University Press.
Benedict, Mark A., and Edward T. McMahon. 2002. Green Infrastructure: Smart
Conservation for the 21st Century. Renewable Resources Journal 20, no 3
(Autumn 2002). [Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available at Sprawl Watch
Clearinghouse: http://www.sprawlwatch.org/greeninfrastructure.pdf.
Bergstrom, J. C., J. M. Bowker, H. K. Cordell, G. Bhat, D. English, R. J. Teasely, and P.
Villegas. 1996. Ecoregional estimates of the net economic value of outdoor
recreation activities in the United States: individual model results. Place:
Environmental Resource Assessment Group U.S. Forest Service Research Unit,
SE-4901, and Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of
Georgia.
Bhat, G., J. Bergstrom, R. J. Teasely, J. M. Bowker, and H. K. Cordell. 1998. An
ecoregional approach to the economic valuation of land- and water-based
recreation in the United States. Environmental Management, 22(1): 69–77.
Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
Economics 29: 293–301.
Brauman, K. A., G. C. Daily, T. K. Duarte, and H. A. Mooney. 2007. The nature and
value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 6.1–6.32.
Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 1991. Net economic value of the freshwater
recreational fisheries of New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society (120): 770–775.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S.
Naeem, R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt.
1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
387(6630): 253–260. [Online, accessed 7/11/08.] Available: http://www.nature.
com/nature/journal/v387/n6630/pdf/387253a0.pdf.
Daily, G. C., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A.
Mooney, S. Postel, S. H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M. Woodwell,. 1997.
Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems.
Issues in Ecology 2:1–16. [Online, accessed 7/11/08.] Available: http://www.esa.
org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issue2.pdf.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 65

Daily, G. C., T. Soderqvist, S. Aniyar, K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, P. R. Ehrlich, C. Folke, A.
Jansson, B.-O. Jansson, N. Kautsky, S. Levin, J. Lubchenko, K. G. Maler, D.
Simpson, D. Starret, D. Tilman, and B. Walker. 2000. The value of nature and the
nature of value. Science 289(5478): 395–396.
Ditton, R. B., S. M. Holland, and D. K. Anderson. 2002. Recreational fishing as tourism.
Fisheries 27(3): 17–24. [Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://www.rbff.
org/uploads/Research_section/fishing_as_tourism.pdf.
Ewel, K. C. 1997. Water quality improvement by wetlands. In G. Daily (editor), Nature's
services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems (329–344). Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Farber, S., R. Costanza. 1987. The economic value of wetlands systems. Journal of
Environmental Management 24: 41–51.
Florida, Richard. 2002a. The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 92(4): 743–55.
———. 2002b. The rise of the creative class: and how it's transforming work, leisure,
community and everyday life. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books.
Freeman, A. M. I. 1993. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory
and methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Gottlieb, Paul D. 1994. Amenities as an economic development tool: is there enough
evidence? Economic Development Quarterly 8(3): 270–85.
———. 1995. Residential amenities, firm location and economic development. Urban
Studies 32(9): 1413–36.
Hawkins, K. 2003. Economic valuation of ecosystem services. Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota. [Online, accessed 7/11/08.] Available: http://www.
regionalpartnerships.umn.edu/public/Valuation%20of%20Ecosystems.pdf.
Karlgaard, Rich. 2003. Where to get rich. Forbes Magazine. [Online, accessed 2/5/09.]
Available: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1006/039.html.
Kaufmann Foundation. 2008 New Economy Index [Online, accessed 2/5/09.] Available:
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/New-State-Index-11-19-08.pdf.
Loomis, J. 2005. Updated outdoor recreation use values on national forests and other
public lands, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR, 658. Portland, Ore.:
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station.
Love, Lisa L., and John L. Crompton. 1999. The role of quality of life in business (Re)
location decisions. Journal of Business Research 44: 211–22.
Michigan State University (MSU), Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation &
Resource Studies (CARRS). 2002. Michigan Tourism Spending by County, 2000
– Update. [Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://www.prr.msu.edu/
miteim/michtsm00.htm.
66
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

———, Land Policy Institute. December 2007. Economic Valuation of Natural Resource
Amenities: A Hedonic Analysis of Hillsdale and Oakland Counties. LPI Report
#2007-09. Report #3, Series on Economic Impact and Valuation Studies in
Natural Resources and Conservation. East Lansing, Mich.: Land Policy Institute.
———. Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center (TTRRC). 2003. Travel
Market Survey. East Lansing, Mich.: MSU, Department of Community,
Agriculture, Recreation & Resource Studies, TTRRC. Data provided by TTRRC.
East Lansing, Mich.: TTRRC.
Michigan State University Extension (MSUE). October 14, 2005. Michigan Tourism
Facts. [Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://www.msue.msu.edu/
objects/content_revision/download.cfm/item_id.259870/workspace_id.117274/MI
CountyMarketShare.pdf.
Michigan Future Inc. 2006. A New Agenda for a New Michigan. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
Michigan Future Inc.
Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the
contingent valuation method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA). 2005. Enhancing
Competitiveness; A Review of Recent State Economic Development Initiatives.
Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
Oakland County, Michigan, N. d. Business Development Services. Fast Facts. [Online,
accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://www.oakgov.com/econ/oakland_county/
fast_facts.html.
Oakland County, Planning & Economic Development Services (PEDS). 2007. County
Economy, Distribution of Firms & Employment. [Online, accessed 7/14/08.]
Available: http://egov.oakgov.com/peds/assets/docs/databook/9_FirmsEmploy
mentProfile.pdf.
O'Mara, Martha J. 1999. Strategic drivers of location decisions for information-age
companies. Journal of Real Estate Research 17(3): 365–86.
Postel, S., and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In. G. Daily (editor),
Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 195–214).
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Public Sector Consultants Inc. (PSC) April 2008. Oakland County Household Recreation
Survey. Lansing, Mich.: PSC.
———. June 2008. Oakland County Business Location and Employee
Attraction/Retention Survey. Lansing, Mich.: PSC.
Rosenberger, R. S., and J. B. Loomis. 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use
values: a technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000
revision). Report No. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 67

Salvesen, David, and Henry Renski. 2003. The importance of quality of life in the
location decisions of new economy firms. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and
Regional Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Shafer, E. L., R. Carline, R. W. Guldin, and H. K. Cordell. 1993. Economic amenity
values of wildlife: six case studies in Pennsylvania. Environmental Management,
17(5), 669–82.
Sohngen, B., F. Lichtkoppler, and M. Bielen. 1998. The value of day trips to Lake Erie
beaches, Technical Bulletin OHSU-TB-039, Ohio Sea Grant College Program.
Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University.
Statistics Canada. 2007. Household size, by province and territory (2006 Census) (New
Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario). [Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available:
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil53b.htm?searchstrdisabled=households%
20ontario%202006&filename=famil53b.htm&lan=eng.
U.S. Census Bureau. September 4, 2002. Census 2000 Data for the State of Michigan,
Michigan Summary File 3 (SF 3). [Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available:
http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/mi.html.
———. November 2002. Michigan 2000, Summary Population and Housing
Characteristics, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Michigan. PHC-1-24.
[Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-1-
24.pdf.
———.2007a. American Community Survey (ACS). [Online, accessed 9/2/08.]
Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_prog
ram=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=.
———. 2007b. 2007 Population Estimates, United States – States; and Puerto Rico.
[Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCT
Table?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-T1-R&-ds_name=
PEP_2007_EST&-format=US-9S.
———. July 2007. 2007 Population Estimates, Michigan. [Online, accessed 9/2/08.]
Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-context=gct
&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_GCTT1R_US9S&-
tree_id=807&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=04000US26&-
format=ST-2|ST-2S&-_lang=en.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Auxiliary Boating
and Safety. 2007. Recreational boating statistics 2007. Washington, D.C.: U. S.
Department of Homeland Security. [Online, accessed 7/15/08.] Available:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_stats.htm.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce, and U.S. Census Bureau. Revised 2003. 2001 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.:
USDOI. [Online, accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003
pubs/01fhw/fhw01-mi.pdf.
68
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. [Online,
accessed 9/2/08.] Available: http://www.bls.gov/CPI/.
Walden, W. A. 1976. Report on Michigan peat preserves. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. [Online, accessed 7/11/08.] Available:
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ogs-gimdl-GGPEAT.pdf.
Wilson, M. A., and S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem
services in the United States: 1971-1997. Ecological Applications 9(3): 772–83.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 69

70
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

[INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWERS IN ALL CAPS]
Appendix A:
Household Recreation Survey
Instrument and Results *
INTRODUCTION
Hello, I’m calling from Public Sector Consultants in Lansing, Michigan. We are
conducting a survey for Oakland County.
The county has asked us to survey residents about what features and characteristics of
Oakland County they value most.
[RANDOM SELECTION OF RESPONDENT AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL]
Are you 18 years of age or older and a resident of Michigan?
Yes.........................................................................................................................Continue
No ......................................................................................................................... Terminate
Are you an employee of Oakland County government?
Yes........................................................................................................................ Terminate
No ..........................................................................................................................Continue
Before we begin, let me tell you that this interview is completely voluntary. If we come
to any question that you don’t want to answer, just let me know and we’ll go on to the
next question. Let me also assure you that all your responses will remain confidential.
Only aggregate information will be shared with Oakland County when all of the surveys
are complete.
[IF THE RESPONDENTS ASKS FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SURVEY SPONSOR: “The survey is being conducted by Oakland County in order to
better understand county resident’s opinions and preferences about their quality of life]
QUESTIONNAIRE
First, I’d like to ask about where you live in Oakland County.
1. In which city, village, or township in Oakland County do you live? [USE OAKLAND
COUNTY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS CODE SHEET AT END OF SURVEY
INSTRUMENT FOR VALID RESPONSES; CODE DON’T KNOW 88888; CODE
REFUSED/OTHER 99999.]
* Percentages in tables may not = 100% due to rounding.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 71

Now, I’d like to read you a list of characteristics of Oakland County, and ask you how
much each of these features affects your quality of life right now. For each one, I’d like
you to tell me whether it has a very large effect, a large effect, a moderate effect, a small
effect, or no effect at all. Don’t think about how important these characteristics are to
you. Think instead about how much effect they have on your quality of life.
2. How much effect does ______________ have on your quality of life? [ROTATE;
REPEAT ANSWER CHOICES AS NECESSARY]
a. the variety of living
choices available (urban,
suburban, or rural)
(N=581)
b. the quality of the schools
(N=577)
c. the sense of community
(N=583)
d. the diversity of activities
available nearby, such as
shopping, dining, outdoor
recreation, etc. (N=590)
e. the safety of communities
(N=591)
f. the availability of many
lakes, rivers, and streams
(N=589)
g. easy access to parks,
trails, and pathways
(N=590)
h. the diversity of the
landscape (blending of
natural lands and built
areas) (N=583)
i. the quality of the natural
environment (forested
areas, wetlands, open
space) (N=586)
j. the scenic beauty
(N=591)
k. the variety and number of
employment opportunities
(N=572)
Very
large
effect
Large
effect
Moderate
effect
Small
effect
No effect
at all
Don’t
know
[VOL.]
Refused/
other
[VOL.]
12.5% 28.7% 34.5% 7.8% 13.3% 2.8% 0.3%
37.0 26.7 10.7 4.2 17.7 3.7 0.2
16.7 31.7 33.7 7.7 7.5 2.7 0.2
26.5 39.5 23.5 4.3 4.5 1.5 0.2
47.2 37.7 11.2 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.0
33.7 35.2 18.0 5.5 5.8 1.8 0.0
21.2 31.7 27.7 7.2 10.7 1.5 0.2
19.2 32.8 30.3 7.0 7.8 2.8 0.0
28.2 41.0 19.7 4.2 4.7 2.0 0.3
27.8 44.0 19.7 3.7 3.3 1.5 0.0
21.2 24.7 20.0 9.8 19.7 4.0 0.7
I also want to ask about how often you visit Oakland County’s recreational resources and
natural environment. I will now read you a list of recreational or natural areas in Oakland
County.
3. Over the past 12 months, about how often would you say that have you visited [item
name] on roughly a daily, weekly, once every two weeks, monthly, or occasional
basis—or not at all? [ROTATE; REPEAT ANSWER CHOICES AS NECESSARY.]
[IF RESPONDENT NEEDS ASSISTANCE IN DECIDING ON ANSWER, PROBE
FOR FREQUENCY AND CODE USING GUIDELINES BELOW FOR AVERAGE
USAGE.
72
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• DAILY
o MINIMUM OF THREE OR MORE DAYS PER WEEK
o NO MAXIMUM
• WEEKLY
o MINIMUM OF AT LEAST FOUR TIMES PER MONTH
o MAXIMUM OF TWO DAYS PER WEEK
• ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS
o MINIMUM OF TWO VISITS PER MONTH (24 VISITS PER YEAR)
o MAXIMUM OF THREE VISITS PER MONTH (36 VISITS PER YEAR)
• MONTHLY
o MINIMUM OF 9 VISITS PER YEAR
o MAXIMUM OF 23 VISITS PER YEAR)
• OCCASIONAL
o NO MINIMUM
o MAXIMUM OF 8 VISITS PER YEAR]
a. a park (state,
county, township,
municipal) (N=594)
b. a public trail or
pathway (N=595)
c. a publicly
accessible lake
(N=591)
d. a private lake
(N=589)
e. undeveloped fields
or woods (N=591)
f. A wetland, marsh,
or swamp (N=590)
g. a river or stream
(N=592)
Daily Weekly
Once
every
two
weeks Monthly Occasional Never
Don’t
know
[VOL.]
Refused/
other
[VOL.]
3.5% 13.2% 6.7% 20.2% 37.7% 17.8% 0.8% 0.2%
4.2 10.3 4.3 15.3 31.0 34.0 0.8 0.0
17.3 6.7 3.2 10.2 28.7 32.5 1.3 0.2
27.0 5.8 1.5 5.7 18.8 39.3 1.5 0.3
4.8 8.5 2.8 12.0 29.8 40.5 1.5 0.0
11.8 5.3 2.2 7.0 21.7 50.3 1.7 0.0
11.5 4.5 3.7 9.5 34.8 34.7 1.2 0.2
4. Thinking again about the past 12 months, about how many times—during that time—
did you go to a lake, pond, river, stream, or wetland in Oakland County primarily to
________________ ? [PROBE TO MAKE SURE RESPONDENTS ARE
RECORDING VISITS BASED ON THEIR PRIMARY PURPOSE. FOR EXAMPLE
A FISHING TRIP IN A BOAT WOULD COUNT AS A FISHING TRIP IF THE
PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS FISHING AND AS A BOATING TRIP IF THE
PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS BOATING.]
Approximate number of times in past
12 months
[RECORD RAW NUMBER; CODE DON’T
KNOW AS 888, REFUSED/
Primary activity
OTHER AS 999]
a. fish (N=578) 5.8 (mean)
b. hunt ducks or geese (N=579) 0.9 (mean)
c. go power boating, water skiing, or jet skiing (N=569) 14.2 (mean)
d. go canoeing, kayaking, or sailing (N=575) 6.5 (mean)
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 73

Approximate number of times in past
12 months
[RECORD RAW NUMBER; CODE DON’T
KNOW AS 888, REFUSED/
Primary activity
OTHER AS 999]
e. go swimming or use the beach (N=569) 16.6 (mean)
f. engage in general recreation (walking, running,
27.0 (mean)
biking, picnicking, relaxing, etc.) (N=532)
g. watch or photograph wildlife (N=554) 16.1 (mean)
5. Are Oakland County’s lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and wetlands important to you
for any other reasons besides the kinds of activities we just mentioned? (N=600)
Yes 49.3%
No 49.2 [SKIP TO Q7]
Don’t know [VOLUNTEERED] 1.2 [SKIP TO Q7]
Refused [VOLUNTEERED] 0.3 [SKIP TO Q7]
6. [IF Q5 = “YES”] What are those reasons? [RECORD FREE RESPONSE]
7. How important are Oakland County’s water resources to your overall quality of life?
(N=600)
Extremely important 44.3%
Very important 33.5
Somewhat important 14.0
Not very important 3.8
Not at all important 3.0
Don’t know [VOLUNTEERED] 0.8
Refused [VOLUNTEERED] 0.5
DEMOGRAPHICS
To conclude the survey, I have a few more questions to ask you. This information is used
just to make sure the sample of people we talk with is representative of all Oakland
County residents.
8. Does the property on which you live have frontage on a lake, river, or stream?
(N=595)
Yes 54.2%
No 45.0
Don’t know [VOLUNTEERED] 0.2
Refused [VOLUNTEERED] 0.7
9. In what year were you born? [FREE RESPONSE, RECORD AS FOUR-DIGIT
YEAR, CODE REFUSED/OTHER AS 9999] (N=563)
Mean = 58.6 years of age
74
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

10. Which of the following best describes your level of education? (N=600)
Less than high school 0.2%
High school graduate or equivalent 12.8
Some college or an associate’s degree 29.0
Bachelor’s degree or higher 55.3
Don’t know [VOLUNTEERED] 0.5
Refused [VOLUNTEERED] 2.2
11. Which of the following income groups includes your total family income in 2007?
(N=600)
Less than $45,000 12.3%
$45,000 to $74,999 12.5
$75,000 to $99,999 13.0
$100,000 to $149,999 14.5
$150,000 to 199,999 5.8
$200,000 or more 10.7
Don’t know [VOLUNTEERED] 2.0
Refused [VOLUNTEERED] 29.2
12. Gender [BY OBSERVATION ONLY] (N=600)
Male 50.0%
Female 50.0
That concludes the survey; thank you for participating.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 75

OAKLAND COUNTY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS CODE SHEET
Code Name
Code Name
00400 Addison
61100 Orion
04105 Auburn Hills
61220 Ortonville
07660 Berkley
62020 Oxford
08160 Beverly Hills
62040 Oxford
08460 Bingham Farms
64900 Pleasant Ridge
08640 Birmingham
65440 Pontiac
09110 Bloomfield
69020 Rochester
09180 Bloomfield Hills
69035 Rochester Hills
10040 Brandon
69580 Rose
16160 Clawson
70040 Royal Oak
17640 Commerce
70060 Royal Oak
27380 Farmington
74900 Southfield
27440 Farmington Hills
74920 Southfield
27760 Fenton
27880 Ferndale
30340 Franklin
35640 Groveland
37420 Hazel Park
38080 Highland
38700 Holly
38720 Holly
40000 Huntington Woods
40400 Independence
42460 Keego Harbor
44440 Lake Angelus
44940 Lake Orion
46320 Lathrup Village
46940 Leonard
49820 Lyon
50560 Madison Heights
53960 Milford
53980 Milford
58980 Northville
59440 Novi
59460 Novi
59820 Oakland
59920 Oak Park
61020 Orchard Lake Village
76
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

QUESTION 6, FREE RESPONSES
Question 6: What are the reasons Oakland County’s lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and
wetlands are important to you?
• All natural resources should be highly protected. My husband and I are strong
advocates for all natural resources of Michigan. We want to keep and protect what is
natural in Michigan. We need to use these natural resources with precaution.
• Balancing is important.
• Basically, it is to keep a better environment and to maintain the wildlife and the life
that we want. We want natural beauty. It's good to have greenery around, but we don't
have that much control over the amount of development that we already have.
• Building a house is important. I love building a house near a lake.
• Different bodies of water are there. They are not concrete and part of the
environment.
• Environment is important for wildlife. Being in the wetlands make the animals happy.
• Environmental reasons are important. It is for natural habitat and oxygen.
• Every community should a have a land for birds and animals to live in.
• For retail because I own one and it answers the value of my property. That's it.
• Fresh water here is important for the future. Everybody is running out of fresh water.
I want to keep the peacefulness of the area.
• How much tax are we going to pay and what are the restrictions imposed on people
for the sake of the animals and wetlands.
• I can paint or take pictures of the wild life.
• I can't say.
• I do not know what to say.
• I do not want to live a completely urbanized life.
• I do skiing and boating.
• I don't like to see them destroyed or damaged. They are important.
• I don't want them to be done away with the wetlands. I hate disrupting the nature.
They provide food for the wildlife, and the wildlife is what I hunt. I don't hunt for
ducks, though.
• I enjoy seeing the good views and sights.
• I enjoy the scenery.
• I get to go to a place that is good for me. I like going to places like that.
• I go hunting with my friends a few times a year. I walk and enjoy the parks. The
family goes there as well. Sometimes, I scout for mushrooms and walk around in the
natural habitat.
• I go to the park or the wetland with my kids. There are times when we ride bicycles
or go fishing on the lake.
• I have a lot of resources around me, but I don't have any occasions to go to.
• I have a pond here. I also visit other locations near the lake.

• I have aesthetic reasons. It balances nature.
• I have ecological reasons.
• I have lived here for 50 years. I love it here.
• I have no reasons.
• I have water here.
• I just enjoy the view. Cleanliness is important.
• I just like to go there and read.
• I just want to have open space.
• I just want to look at it or enjoy the scene.
• I like an area with a lot of lakes and streams. It is beautiful.
• I like fish and take pictures.
• I like its beauty and tranquility.
• I like its beauty.
• I like its natural beauty and its serenity.
• I like jogging and running.
• I like living here because of the beauty of the lakes and rivers.
• I like looking at them. It is peaceful.
• I like the beauty and the quality of the lakes.
• I like the beauty of having clean water.
• I like the beauty of it.
• I like the beauty of staying there. It makes me feel good.
• I like the beauty of the nature that surrounds the lake. I do horseback riding and
follow the trails.
• I like the ecological environment and the beauty of the natural resources.
• I like the large dog park for walking around.
• I like the natural beauty of the ecosystem.
• I like the natural beauty.
• I like the outdoors and the beauty of it. I like the type of living with the environment
as opposed to living in the city. I have lived in Oakland County for most of my life. I
lived in Hawaii for seven years, but I would rather be here. I prefer living in
Michigan, specifically in Oakland.
• I like the scene and would like to see them. I would like to teach my grandchildren
about wildlife. I can't run, but I can definitely walk with them.
• I like the scenery.
• I like the scenic beauty. The beautiful lakes are very important to the county.
• I like the scenic beauty. They help improve the environment and raise the standard of
living.
• I like the views and the scenic beauty.
• I like to fly kites there and hunt.
78
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• I like watching the wildlife.
• I live and enjoy the lake. We also have a pond.
• I live in the outdoors. I am a fisherman. There is togetherness with the lake and me.
• I live near a lake.
• I live near a lake. It is fun and much better here than the city.
• I live near the lake and enjoy the view.
• I live near the lake.
• I live near the waters.
• I live on the waterway. I take my family out on boat rides. I like the outdoors.
• I live the lake and want clean water.
• I occasionally go there to take photographs.
• I pass on them when I am driving. There are rivers, and I drive around the lake at
least once a week.
• I see a lot of wetlands being filled in for building of commercial properties.
• I use it for boating.
• I want my lake to be clean for health reasons.
• I want them to be an important part of the place.
• I want to appreciate art.
• I want to be able to connect with nature in my spiritual path.
• I want to be able to enjoy its beauty.
• I want to be able to view natural woods and streams.
• I want to enjoy natural beauty and wildlife. I also enjoy fishing and hunting
privileges. They have great camping facilities and easy access for boats.
• I want to get away from the urban environment.
• I want to have a balanced ecology and to maintain the balance in nature.
• I want to have the fresh water available. Another reason is their beauty.
• I want to increase the property value.
• I want to keep it for its beauty.
• I want to preserve the environment.
• I want to preserve the wildlife.
• I want to preserve them, not to destroy them.
• I want to preserve water.
• I want to protect the animals and the wildlife.
• I want to support the environment and the animals that live here.
• I want to watch the birds.
• I want woods and green environment. Another reason is the water that is available.
• I would like to enjoy the activities.
• I would like to go there and sit on my tire. I would like to take my grandchild over
there. I like to go in the ponds and catch fishes. It's very educational for my kids. I do
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 79

a lot of sketching and drawing. I also do watercolor paintings at the park. There are a
lot of wildlife and places that have been turned into parks. Domestic plants have
survived at the beach.
• I would like to see private lakes with fresh water. They should protect the wetlands
and don't keep it too crowded.
• I would rather see a lake than wildlife.
• I'm interested about the pollution on those lakes.
• It adds diversity for the people to use the facility.
• It affects the value of my property and for recreation.
• It contributes to the overall image of the community.
• It has a large impact economically for the county. It provides water resources for the
county.
• It has a property value.
• It has an environmental impact. We should be taking care of them to have clean
water.
• It helps the cycle of life.
• It helps the kids because it's not crowded.
• It is for the quality of the environment.
• It increases the value of the property. It could be also be used for health and
recreation.
• It is a business opportunity.
• It is a free form.
• It is a natural beauty and water resource.
• It is a natural beauty. It is for the quality of living and recreational opportunity.
• It is a natural habitat. I go to the nature center national park and take my kids there.
• It is beautiful.
• It is beauty and serenity.
• It is because of its beauty, serenity and the calmness.
• It is because of its property value. It provides educational opportunities for the
children and has natural areas for activities.
• It is because of the beauty of nature.
• It is because of the beauty.
• It is because of the visibility of the landscape.
• It is better to sell our property, and I like the scenic beauty.
• It is desirable for the county.
• It is environmental reasons and for the future generations. It is nature’s way of
cleaning the land for the future generations.
• It is for beautification and to help the environment.
• It is for beautification.
• It is for beauty and relaxation.
80
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• It is for beauty and variety.
• It is for biking.
• It is for conservation or to save the beauty of wildlife.
• It is for ecology and clean air.
• It is for environmental reasons and for the wildlife. The wetlands will help the lake.
• It is for environmental reasons. I like a clean environment and water.
• It is for family outings and meetings. I like the trees.
• It is for good health, serenity and exercise.
• It is for healthy living, to feel beautiful and is good for picnics. I take my
grandchildren there.
• It is for hiking.
• It is for its real estate value.
• It is for natural beauty. It is beautiful to see something soothing to the eyes.
• It is for our well being. When you are connected to nature, you can enjoy its beauty.
• It is for preservation.
• It is for preservation.
• It is for recreation and [to] see the natural beauty of our land and the preservation of
wildlife.
• It is for recreation and help.
• It is for recreational activities with my family and friends. It is also for relaxation and
spiritual renewal.
• It is for scenic reasons.
• It is for sporting wildlife.
• It is for the atmosphere. When you drive by, you could see the scenic beauty of
nature.
• It is for the community.
• It is for the ecology. We should be careful of foreign predators to maintain the good
balance of the community and do away from pollution for the survival of the wildlife.
• It is for the environment and wildlife.
• It is for the environment, clean water and air, and wildlife, and animal shelter.
• It is for the future of our children and grandchildren.
• It is for the general beauty of the environment.
• It is for the general environment. Even though I may not use them myself, it is an
important asset of the community.
• It is for the general quality of life, value of properties and to enjoy the environment.
• It is for the habitat and all the trees. We should keep things natural.
• It is for the people, so that they can use the lake.
• It is for the preservation of natural beauty.
• It is for the protection of the environment.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 81

• It is for the real estate value.
• It is for the scenery, recreation, boating, swimming, kayaking and occasional fishing.
• It is for the scenic beauty.
• It is for the value of keeping them clean for future generations.
• It is for the wildlife. (3)
• It is for their beauty and support of wildlife.
• It is for those who enjoy having one.
• It is for us to know that they are very important.
• It is for wildlife habitat and ecology in general.
• It is good to have them there. I want to keep them for our children and for our
children's children. We want to have areas for animals.
• It is important for me because I live near the lake.
• It is important for me to live at.
• It is important for my children and grandchildren to enjoy it.
• It is important for our property’s value. We live near the lake and it is very pleasant to
look at it.
• It is important for the environment to have water, lakes, and streams. It is also for the
state and the earth.
• It is important to have clean air. It is beautiful to watch the wildlife. The department
of environmental quality and township needs to work together and do their job, but
they are not. There is an unbelievable disconnection. It is a mess.
• It is important to look at them.
• It is important to me because of the property value.
• It is important to protect the environment. We need to take care of it for the next
generation.
• It is just the view of the area.
• It is nice to look at.
• It is our environment. We need to take care of it.
• It is peaceful and serene.
• It is preserve the wildlife and for us to enjoy it.
• It is pretty to look at.
• It is relaxing just to look at them.
• It is safe for the environment.
• It is [to] see the beauty of it.
• It is the beauty.
• It is the beauty of nature and it draws visitors and possible new residents.
• It is the beauty of Oakland lakes and parks.
• It is the beauty of the landscape and habitat for animals.
• It is the beauty within it. I like nature, so we need to give it more value.
82
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• It is the breeding ground for wildlife and other habitats.
• It is the diversity of our lifestyles. It gives you a chance to do a lot of different things.
• It is the ecological impact it has on earth. My other reasons are the scenic and natural
beauty that it has.
• It is the home of the chipmunks.
• It is the perfect view.
• It is the scenery.
• It is the value of natural resources.
• It is to balance the environment and provide habitat to animals, even though I am not
visiting them. I would prefer Oakland state to development.
• It is to conserve nature.
• It is to make the whole area more valuable. Oakland County will be more desirable to
live in. Most people enjoy the lakes and parks, so they need to make the property
more valuable.
• It is to relax.
• It is to see nature and wildlife. It is also a place of relaxation, entertainment, and
exercise.
• It is to see the beauty of nature and its availability.
• It is to see the wildlife. You name it and it is there.
• It is very important. I love this lake. It is everything to me.
• It makes me relaxed when I go out on the water on my boat.
• It means for the health of our state. We have to keep track of these things to keep
everything the way it is. It is not to be polluted.
• It must be preserved and protected from damage, pollution, and harm. The water must
be clean enough.
• It protects the residents. I like the beauty and calmness of them. We need to have
access in our lake.
• It will be a preservation of water wildlife.
• It's important because it's our environment. I could not stand not being with nature.
• It's important to the wildlife. Another reason is the basic sense of tranquility. I can
take my grandson out for fishing. The launch sites in Oakland County and parks
around the area are charging $24 a year.
• Its natural beauty is my only reason.
• Its scenic beauty is my only reason.
• Keep the natural resources available, healthy, and unpolluted for future generations.
• My home is near the lakes.
• My only reason is beauty.
• My only reason is the scenery.
• My only reason is the scenery. I like walking and watching the scenery.
• My reason is habitat preservation.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 83

• My reason is it’s the beauty. I love watching the lake, the tides, and the different
colors.
• My reason is its beauty.
• My reason is the environment.
• My reason is the fresh water resources.
• My reason is the property value.
• My reason is to keep us healthy.
• My reasons are clean water, air and wildlife.
• My reasons are cleanliness and nature.
• My reasons are the common effects.
• My reasons are the environment and respect for the environment.
• My reasons are the environment, beauty and wildlife.
• My reasons are the habitat of animals and the scenery in the area which improves the
quality of life.
• My reasons are the quality of life and environmental conditions.
• My reasons are the scenic beauty and I just enjoy being by the water.
• My reasons are the scenic beauty, watching the wildlife, and just relaxing outdoors. I
also take a hike regularly.
• Natural resources are my only reason.
• Nature is important.
• Once it is gone, everything else will also be gone. It has an impact on the
environment, but then they are slowly developing on it. It is also for ecological
reasons as well.
• People want to build businesses that destroy wetlands. If we have no more wetlands,
it could lead to the extinction of animals.
• Protecting the environment is pleasing.
• Scenic beauty and population density are my reasons.
• The beauty of the community is awesome.
• The comfort of driving outside the city to this peaceful place is relaxing.
• The diversity of life is nice to look at.
• The ecosystem should continue to be as it is.
• The environment is very important to me in general.
• The groundwater renewal has an economic value in our tourism. They are the pieces
of quality that we can survive on.
• The preservation is for my children.
• The quality of plant and animal life is important. I want to make sure that it is alive
and striving.
• The quality of water and headwaters conservancy are important to me. There should
be water wildlife.
84
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• The scenic beauty and the things we have attract more people. We should take care of
it to improve the value. These things make other people kind hopeful. It is for the
good of the community.
• The stream that goes into my property provides scenic beauty and water supply.
• The value of the property is important. It gives my grandchildren a reason to visit me.
• The water level and the quality affects our lakes.
• The wetlands shelter the water, so it keeps the lakes cold.
• The wildlife is my main reason. It is important that we don't dump anything;
otherwise we won't have animals anymore.
• There are a lot of things I like to do, but I don't make time for it like walking with my
dog.
• There are wildlife creatures that are now entering at my backyard. Deer eat my apples
and the raccoons go inside the garbage bin. They broke the subdivision. The animals
are now in the neighborhood. These were not a problem before.
• These are valuable environmental resources. They are important to the people as it's
part of the earth.
• They are beautiful to look at. I love the water, the recreation and the look of
everything.
• They are beautiful, relaxing and relieving.
• They are electric boating and we like clean water.
• They are for tracking and providing habitat.
• They are helping the environment. It is good to know that they are there. It is also
good that neighbors and other people can enjoy them. It is important.
• They are important for the habitat. They provide for all the birds, mammals, and
amphibians. I would rather look at trees than houses.
• They are natural resources.
• They are pleasing.
• They are property value, quality of life and water.
• They are relaxing.
• They create a positive feeling of the area.
• They have real estate values.
• They help our environment. When we talk about beauty, it is nice to look at it. I am
sure that in some way, they are as important as our drinking water.
• They help the community.
• They keep our environment safe and great for the kids.
• They keep some clean and natural habitat for wildlife.
• They teach the proper value of assistance to natural life.
• They would be ecological reasons.
• They would educational reasons for my children, and they are part of our history.
• They're important to me, my neighbors and other people living in my community.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 85

• Those things are necessary out here.
• We can visit and watch.
• We have natural resources and they really help. They are our natural properties. It is
better to be able to go once in awhile to those places just to relax, like having a family
outing instead of going to the malls and shop.
• We have to live with a water supply. I love the moment of life in this place.
• We have to maintain the wildlife and keep our history.
• We live near the lake. I want to have more privacy. I like the activities, the view and
how quiet it is. I like listening to the birds chirping.
• We live on a lake.
• We need them.
• We need to have places to enjoy ourselves and think about nature. We need to enjoy
the beauty of the park and see the wildlife. We need enjoy nature centered education
where we don't hear motors.
• We need to maintain a habitat for the wildlife.
• We need wildlife around us.
• We should protect them.
• We support each other. We need the wildlife. There are a lot of people in our area.
We take care of the water.
• We value natural beauty and for preservation.
86
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

E-MAIL INVITATION TEXT
Appendix B:
Oakland County Businesses Location and
Employee Attraction/Retention Survey
Instrument and Results *
Initial E-mail Invitation
Subject: Oakland County Business Survey
Oakland County Planning & Economic Development Services (PEDS) would greatly
appreciate your input on a survey of Oakland County businesses. The survey is an effort
to better understand the factors that influence firms’ decisions to locate in Oakland
County. The County is also interested in understanding the factors that contribute to
firms’ abilities to attract and retain employees.
Ideally, the person or persons most responsible for making location decisions and for
recruiting employees should answer the questions. If you think it more appropriate that
someone other than you take this survey, please forward this e-mail to that person.
Even though the information from the survey is not particularly sensitive, please be
assured that your responses will be completely confidential. The survey should take about
10-15 minutes to complete.
Thank you in advance for taking a few minutes to participate. Your responses will help
the PEDS create a better business environment in Oakland County.
To begin the survey, click here: [LINK TO SURVEY]
Sincerely,
(Contact Name)
Please note: If you do not wish to participate in the survey or receive further emails from
us, please click the link below and you will be automatically removed from our mailing
list. [LINK TO BE REMOVED FROM MAILING LIST]
First Reminder E-mail
Subject: Oakland County Business Survey Reminder
You recently received an e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey of Oakland
County Businesses. If you have already submitted a response, thank you.
If you have not yet participated in the survey and would like to, please use the following
link [LINK TO SURVEY].
Your input is very valuable to us. Thank you!
* Percentages in tables may not = 100% due to rounding.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 87

Sincerely,
(Contact Name)
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. [LINK TO BE
REMOVED FROM MAILING LIST]
Second Reminder E-mail
Subject: Survey of Oakland County Businesses Reminder (Survey Ends 7/4/08)
You recently received an e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey of Oakland
County Businesses. If you have already submitted a response, thank you!
The survey collection period will end this Friday, July 4th at 5pm. If you have not yet
participated in the survey and would like to, please use the following link [LINK TO
SURVEY].
Your input is very valuable to us. Thank you!
Sincerely,
(Contact Name)
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. [LINK TO BE
REMOVED FROM MAILING LIST]
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Has the firm moved to this location within the past five years? (N=219)
Yes 37.4%
No 62.6
2. If yes, how involved were you in the decision to locate the firm at its current
location? (N=81)
Very involved 65.4%
Somewhat involved 12.4
Not involved 22.2
3. If no, is the firm currently in the process of considering relocating or expanding to a
new location? (N=137)
Yes 26.3%
No 73.7
4. If yes, how involved are you in the location decision? (N=36)
Very involved 61.1%
Somewhat involved 19.4
Not involved 19.4
88
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

5. To which of the following broadly defined sectors does your firm belong? (N=211)
Natural resources and mining (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining) 0.0%
Construction (building construction, renovation, or repair; engineering projects;
real estate development)
4.7
Manufacturing (plants, factories, mills, etc., that transform raw materials into
new products)
10.4
Services (wholesale or retail trade, transportation, warehousing, utilities) 4.3
Information (publishing, software, broadcasting, telecommunications, data
processing, information services)
15.6
Financial activities (finance and insurance, real estate and rental and leasing) 15.6
Professional and business services (professional, scientific, and technical 28.9
services; management of companies and enterprises; administrative and
support; waste management and remediation services)
Education and health services (education services, health care, social
assistance)
1.4
Leisure and hospitality (arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food
services)
0.5
Other (specify) 18.5
6. About how many people does your firm employ in Oakland County? (N=208)
1 to 4 employees 21.1%
5 to 9 employees 15.9
10 to 19 employees 11.1
20 to 49 employees 21.6
50 to 99 employees 7.7
100 to 249 employees 12.5
250 to 499 employees 2.9
500 to 999 employees 2.9
1,000 or more employees 4.3
7. How well does the following statement describe this firm? “The firm’s financial
performance is relatively independent of its location. Employees are the firm’s most
important resource and the firm is not tied to raw materials, natural resources, energy
supplies, or location-specific markets.” (N=195)
Extremely well 40.0%
Very well 25.6
Moderately well 22.6
Not very well 9.7
Not at all well 2.0
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 89

8. Please rank the three factors below in terms of their relative importance to your firm.
Place a “1” next to the most important, “2” next to the second most important, “3”
next to the third most important, and “4” next to the least important.
a. The existence of a well-established
local labor force (labor costs, fringe
benefits, worker skills, and work
attitudes in the community) (N=186)
b. The cost of doing business
(acquiring raw materials, utilities,
transportation, and taxes) (N=191)
1 2 3 4
13.0% 18.8% 34.4% 31.7%
16.8 24.6 29.3 29.3
c. Proximity to customers (N=187) 35.3 21.9 15.0 27.8
d. The ability to attract and retain
skilled or professional personnel
(the factors that influence attraction
and retention of employees)
(N=190)
33.7 35.8 20.5 10.0
9. How did the firm come to this location in Oakland County?
a. The firm was originally established at this location in: ___________________ year
b. The firm moved to this location from: __________ city ______ state ______ country _____ year
c. The firm expanded and established an additional site at this location in: __________year
Responses to questions 9 (a, b, and c) were too inconsistent to permit meaningful
analysis. The questions were more important for describing firms than for the
statistical analysis. Therefore, and the absence of consistent responses did not
unduly limit the analysis.
10. How important were each of the following factors in the firm’s decision to locate in
Oakland County?
a. Proximity to natural
areas (undeveloped
parks and forests,
wildlife sanctuaries)
(N=164)
b. Quality of
primary/secondary
education (N=164)
c. Availability of outdoor
land-based
recreational
opportunities (local
parks, trails, and
pathways) (N=164)
d. Variety of cultural and
entertainment
opportunities (N=165)
e. Proximity to colleges
or universities (N=164)
Extremely Very Moderate Not very Not at all NA/DK
1.2% 3.0% 13.4% 27.4% 40.8% 14.0%
7.9 32.3 22.6 12.8 17.7 6.7
0.6 4.3 26.2 25.6 32.9 10.4
1.8 15.8 32.7 20.6 21.8 7.3
7.3 23.2 41.5 9.2 14.0 4.9
90
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

f. Water-based
recreational
opportunities (boating,
swimming, fishing)
(N=164)
g. Community
characteristics
(housing costs, crime
rate, public services,
public safety, diversity
of residential
environments)
(N=164)
h. Access to
transportation (e.g.,
roads, airports,
railways) (N=164)
i. Community
recreational
infrastructure (e.g.,
water parks, golf
courses, swimming
pools, etc.) (N=165)
j. Healthy and vibrant
downtowns and
historic town centers
(N=160)
k. Proximity to
customers,
competitors, or
suppliers (N=167)
l. Labor and costs (wage
rates, labor quality and
availability, costs of
land and buildings,
operating costs)
(N=167)
m. Government support
for business location
(N=165)
Extremely Very Moderate Not very Not at all NA/DK
2.4% 1.8% 18.9% 31.7% 34.2% 11.0%
12.2 42.1 27.4 6.1 7.3 4.9
22.0 37.2 29.9 4.9 3.0 3.0
1.2 6.1 26.7 29.7 27.3 9.1
6.2 16.2 28.8 24.4 18.1 6.2
49.7 27.5 13.8 3.6 4.2 1.2
20.4 40.7 24.0 7.8 4.2 3.0
15.8 31.5 19.4 12.7 12.7 7.9
11. What are the most important reasons for the location of this business in Oakland
County?
Open-ended responses
12. In your experience, is it more or less difficult to recruit workers to your location in
Oakland County than it would be in other locations in southeast Michigan? (N=169)
Much more difficult 0.6%
Somewhat more difficult 5.3
About the same 24.3
Somewhat less difficult 24.9
Much less difficult 31.4
Don't know 13.6
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 91

13. In your experience, is it more or less difficult to recruit workers to your location in
Oakland County than in similar metropolitan areas in the United States?
Much more difficult 10.8%
Somewhat more difficult 30.5
About the same 13.8
Somewhat less difficult 12.0
Much less difficult 8.4
Don't know 24.6
14. In your experience, how important are each of the following features of Oakland
County to your ability to attract and retain employees?
a. Proximity to natural areas
(undeveloped parks and
forests, wildlife sanctuaries)
(N=152)
b. Quality of
primary/secondary
education (N=156)
c. Availability of outdoor landbased
recreational
opportunities (local parks,
trails, and pathways)
(N=155)
d. Variety of cultural and
entertainment opportunities
(N=155)
e. Proximity to colleges or
universities (N=155)
f. Water-based recreational
opportunities (boating,
swimming, fishing) (N=153)
g. Community characteristics
(housing costs, crime rate,
public services, public
safety, diversity of
residential environments)
(N=157)
h. Access to transportation
(e.g., roads, airports,
railways) (N=156)
i. Community recreational
infrastructure (e.g., water
parks, golf courses,
swimming pools, etc.)
(N=153)
j. Healthy and vibrant
downtowns and historic
town centers (N=157)
Extremely Very Moderate Not very Not at all NA/DK
2.6% 13.8% 32.2% 19.7% 17.1% 14.5%
18.6 37.2 22.4 7.1 5.8 9.0
2.6 24.5 33.6 16.8 9.7 12.9
8.4 27.1 35.5 11.6 6.5 11.0
12.9 35.5 31.6 6.5 5.2 8.4
2.0 18.3 33.3 22.2 9.8 14.4
27.4 45.9 14.0 3.8 1.9 7.0
23.1% 42.3 22.4 3.2 2.6 6.4
2.0 22.9 34.0 20.9 6.5 13.7
8.9 33.8 26.8 14.7 6.4 9.6
k. Other (N=51) 15.7 11.8 0.0 7.8 7.8 56.9
If "other," please specify:
15. In your experience, what features of Oakland County are most attractive to existing
and potential employees?
Open-ended responses
92
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

16. In your opinion, how does the retention rate of employees in this firm compare to the
retention rate in similar firms throughout the country? (N=160)
Much better 19.4%
Somewhat better 30.6
About the same 25.0
Somewhat worse 3.8
Much worse 1.3
Don't know 20.0
17. Oakland County has more lakes than any other county in Michigan. How aware are
you of Oakland County’s lakes?
Very aware 62.0%
Somewhat aware 27.6
Not very aware 6.1
Not at all aware 4.3
18. Oakland County has over 80,000 acres of park, recreation, and conservation lands.
How aware are you of Oakland County’s parks and conservation lands?
Very aware 62.0%
Somewhat aware 27.6
Not very aware 6.1
Not at all aware 4.3
19. Oakland County has completed 95 miles of a 270-mile major trail system. How aware
are you of Oakland County’s trail system?
Very aware 29.1%
Somewhat aware 35.8
Not very aware 26.7
Not at all aware 8.5
20. Oakland County has 30 traditional downtowns and historic town centers. How aware
are you of Oakland County’s downtowns and historic town centers?
Very aware 40.2%
Somewhat aware 45.1
Not very aware 11.6
Not at all aware 3.1
QUESTION 5, FREE RESPONSES TO “OTHER” SECTOR
• 50% research and dev. with 50% tooling and fixtures
• Aerospace/defense
• All of the above
• Automotive headquarters with multiple functions
• Business law
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 93

• Consulting for international trade banking services
• Creative services; communications
• Crisis intervention human services
• Design & engineering resources
• Digital marketing and advertising
• Electric and gas utility
• Engineering
• Engineering / software / staffing
• Engineering services to automotive and military illumination
• Engineering/automotive product design and develop.
• Event marketing
• Generator equipment sales, service and rental
• I don't have a business
• Industrial identification products & services
• International business development
• Internet Web services
• IT advisory services
• Law
• Law firm
• Legal
• Manufacturing and engineering services
• Marketing, advertising and public relations
• Not involved in any business
• Simulation testing
• Software & services
• Software and computer aided tools in education and industry
• Staffing
• Technical sales office
• Technology startup
• Test equipment sales & calibration services
• Training and performance improvement
• Training for industrial/quality engineers
• Translating, interpreting & consulting in the US/Japan interface
• Transportation services - specifically freight arranging
QUESTION 11, FREE RESPONSES TO “OTHER” SECTOR
Question 11: What are the most important reasons for the location of this business in
Oakland County?
94
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• 1) Easy access to highways. 2) Good schools, graduate & undergraduate. 3) Reliable
technology infrastructure
• 1. Was already living here. Had already conducted three major corporate sells and
turnarounds in Oakland County, then decided to form my own company. 2. First
clients were from this area, but rapidly increased client base outside of Michigan and
the U.S. 3. There currently are few reasons to remain in Oakland County other than
convenience because my wife and I already live here. The State government is
making me consider a move. The lack of turnaround in Detroit is making me consider
a move. The new tax laws are making me consider a move.
• 3 miles from home
• Access to customers and being at this location gave us the image that we want to
project.
• Access to local stable customer base.
• Access to southeast Michigan markets
• A lot of customers in Oakland County
• Area is centralized in Metro area for recruiting and retention purposes of employees.
Tax incentives. Proximity to some customers
• Automation Alley catalyst function for finding customers
• Automotive connections and central location to all three, but with down turn of
American Automotive Manufacturing Plants, location is no longer as important as it
once was.
• Availability of skilled workforce
• Born and live here. Established here
• Central location and easy commute
• Central location for employee commute and distance to clients and prospects
• Central location to 4 counties and high end housing and schools
• Central location, near to transportation, general aesthetics and business character of
the area.
• Central to auto industry
• Central, safe location
• Centrally located for associates working here. Access to excellent medical care and
educational facilities.
• Client base and wealth
• Close proximity to home, quality of life in area, high disposable incomes
• Close to customers
• Close to owner's home, close knit business community
• Close to owner's residence and clients.
• Community characteristics
• Community leadership... specifically L. Brooks Patterson and his team.
• Contact with companies involved in international export/import business.
• Corporate headquarters
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 95

• Cost, proximity to customers, qualified labor pool
• Costs
• Costs of doing business with our customers. Proximity to customers. Proximity to
employee homes.
• Customer base
• Customers' proximity
• Customers, cost of doing business and employee talent
• Customers, suppliers and transportation
• Excellent labor pool, proximity to Metro Airport, availability of "empty" buildings
(unfortunately)
• Exceptional business-friendly environment. Let's hope it stays that way and we can
get Brooks re-elected!
• Founder already resided in Oakland County prior to starting the company
• From the DTW airport all major cities on the East coast and Chicago are within 1-2
hours reachable. Oakland is a great location for our consulting business.
• Government funding for the project!!!
• Government support for hiring resources in Oakland County.
• Great access to highways and proximity to clients. Historic building site, ability to
attract clients, guests to visit our office, close to great restaurants & entertainment
venues.
• History
• Hughes does not have a physical presence in Oakland County - in the form of an
office. We have 3 employees who reside in Oakland County and work from their
homes. We are considering a larger presence in the greater Detroit area to support the
auto manufacturers.
• I grew up and live in Oakland County--inertia
• I live here
• I live in Oakland County
• I lived in Southfield and then moved to Farmington Hills and moved the business
both times.
• Ideas, customers, chances and educated stuff around. As well as support by the daily
needs and surprises in the start up phase.
• Interstate 75
• It is located in the center of our business region.
• It is where we do business and is in close proximity to the owners’ place of residence.
• It is who we serve - Oakland County residents
• It's where we live
• Joe Knollenberg, our Congressman. L. Brooks Patterson, our County Executive,
Senator Carl Levin, U.S. Senator and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee
• Large enough site for consolidation of facilities, with highway access and green
space.
96
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• Lived here all my life and wanted to grow a business in the community I live in.
• Location and cost of real estate
• Location close to major customers & employee base
• Location of customers
• Location, housing, schools
• Location, opportunities, employees
• Majority of employees live in N. Oakland County. Lease is up in 1 year. We will be
considering other locations based on any tax incentives available at the time and
realization of combining recent acquisitions into facility.
• Many of our existing customers are located here and many potential customers are
located within the region.
• Most of our founders were born and raised in Oakland County and want to raise our
families here too.
• Our firm provides professional services to successful people who live in the area. It is
important that they have easy access to us. Also, Birmingham is a vibrant community
and projects our firm's image positively.
• Our major customers are located in S E Michigan, the quality of employees and their
supporting efforts are critical to the growth and success of our business.
• Population shift from Detroit to suburbs following Detroit's civil unrest in the late
1960's.
• Professional buildings and proximity to customers
• Professional work environment, proximity to customers, security and access to
highways
• Proximity in southeast Michigan in a pro business climate
• Proximity to automotive customer base
• Proximity to clients
• Proximity to customers and easy access roadways
• Proximity to customers and Oakland Counties pro business attitude
• Proximity to customers and supply base.
• Proximity to customers and workforce
• Proximity to customers, access to resources at a reasonable labor rate.
• Proximity to customers.
• Proximity to customers. Expertise in local area and business environment.
• Proximity to customers. Owner resident of Oakland County
• Proximity to customers. Public safety
• Proximity to employees, access to expressways, lack of traffic congestion,
attractiveness of site
• Proximity to employees’ homes
• Proximity to family 2. Established relationships. 3. Enjoyment of overall quality of
life and people in region 4. Abundant opportunities. 5. Perfect leverage location of the
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 97

"Perfect Storm" - worst economics in country breeds best opportunity for growthopportunity
for innovation and massive change. 6. Believe will be the future global
location for "Center of Human Potential."
• Proximity to highly desirable customers and prospects and the ability to attract and
retain top professionals
• Proximity to home business location and availability of appropriate space.
• Proximity to our clients and the ability to attract qualified applicants.
• Proximity to our customers.
• Proximity to our employees’ homes. L. Brooks Patterson, safety, security, educated
voters.
• Proximity to prospective clients (Public Employee Retirement Systems) in the most
progressive and advance thinking county in Michigan!
• Proximity to residence of owner
• Proximity to SE Michigan communities
• Proximity to the homes of our two founding partners, who live in Royal Oak and
Bloomfield Twp and don't really want to relocate.
• Resources, customers
• Since we have been here for almost 40 years, our location in Oakland County is
critical because of our proximity to our employees.
• Skilled labor (although few speak Japanese fluently). Great quality of life. (Now)
reasonable costs of living.
• Strong business growth culture balanced with family
• Talent pool. Affluent nature of the area. High tech suppliers
• The emergence of high technology (e.g., biotechnology, nanotechnology, wireless-my
professional expertise) in the universities and global awareness in the middle and
secondary schools, e.g., Oakland Schools Global Trade Mission in which I
participated for 4 consecutive years.
• The LLC member(s) live in Oakland County. State/county pride.
• The owner of this company grew up and went to school and college in this area and
wanted to remain in the community.
• They're listed above
• This is where I grew up and my elderly parents live here.
• This location helps us take advantage of the Southeast Michigan area. Our employees
also live in or close to Oakland County.
• Vibrant business community and desirable location to live and entertain.
• We all live here or nearby.
• We are a home office based organization. The current local infrastructure in the State
of Michigan does not afford many cost effective public transportation options, like
commuter trains. Everyone comes from so many different locations and MDOT is
always conducting construction (NOT WELL PLANNED AT ALL!) it makes for a
98
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

long difficult commute. This combined with gas prices reinforces our decision to
continue working from our homes.
• Wealth of the county
QUESTION 15, FREE RESPONSES TO “OTHER” SECTOR
Question 15: In your experience, what features of Oakland County are most attractive to
existing and potential employees?
• 1. Its vision for the long term future and the potential for jobs that creates. 2.
Investment in Transportation 3. Mixed Income Housing 4. Good Schools and
Shopping 5. Diversity 6. Water
• 1. Location 2. Transportation 3. Air Travel
• A vast majority of our personnel drive from Genesee County. We have been fortunate
enough to maintain our team and encourage carpooling.
• Access to expressways and ease of travel to and from work. Safe environment.
• Accessibility to many things
• Affordable housing with good schools
• Affordable housing, mature infrastructure, municipal and county services.
• Attractive area, colleges and universities nearby
• Availability of freeways for quick access to region and the local headquarters of
major corporations. As they close or leave the region becomes less attractive.
• Broad base of employers
• Business networking opportunities and related organizations
• Busy work life and the easy going home life with recreational and family activities
• Career growth opportunities
• Central working location. Restaurants & entertainment venues (quality of work
environment).
• Centrally located for quick access to educational facilities, excellent medical care,
and recreational activities.
• Centrally located to the automotive industry!
• Clean, well maintained, upscale, businesslike.
• Community, resources, low crime
• Crime / public safety issues good in OC schools, healthy communities good in OC
• Diversity and culture of the county
• Diversity,
• Do not know
• Don't know
• Don't know
• Easy access, low crime, moderate costs
• Economic and educational demographics.
• Educated work force, excellent county econ dev. and county exec.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 99

• Education, housing
• Excellent business climate and community based features.
• Good communities, good highway access, good educational opportunities.
• Good school systems and comfortable neighborhoods.
• Good schools and excellent employment opportunities
• Good schools, area housing, congregation of other businesses, clients, customers,
suppliers
• Great downtowns!
• Great place to raise a family
• Great schools, reasonable cost of housing compared to the rest of the USA, fun
"downtown" areas in B'ham, Royal Oak and Rochester, outstanding high end
shopping at Somerset Mall, outstanding restaurants.
• Growth, # of business entities located in Oakland Cty.
• High-quality universities, multicultural organizations
• Home prices are low
• Home values, public safety.
• Housing options & cost. Access from "rural" neighborhoods. Great school systems -
K12 & Universities. Vibrant communities
• I would have said the automotive industry, but, now I believe that the automotive
industry will implode completely in the next twelve months. For me, there is a very
strong political leadership locally. However, it is threatened by a State leadership that
leans to excessive taxation. Were it not for the location of our prime customer, we
would have moved to one of two states that have offered very significant incentives.
• Interstate access for those coming from all parts of metro area. Close proximity to
homes of employees
• It is where my home is!! :)
• Its location. Safety of the community. Access to freeways.
• Jobs availability, centrally located.
• Location
• LOCATION
• Location to customers and employees' homes, proximity to other high tech
companies. Infrastructure, convenience to shopping, freeways, etc.
• Location to major businesses, water, parks, education system
• Low cost of living, high quality of life
• Low crime, parks/trails
• Low food and housing costs compared to other states. Beautiful landscape
• Lower crime, upper middle class neighborhoods, Northern Oakland County area,
school systems.
• MI is a beautiful state, typically with abundant, well-paying jobs - Oakland County
leads the state in this regard
100
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

• Mostly -- they already live here. There are, unfortunately, few attractions to anyone
outside of Michigan. Low crime rate, nice neighborhoods are pluses. Over-priced
housing (although that is now where it should be) was a real negative. Schools are
good, but not great. Southeast Michigan has an over-inflated view of the quality of
their primary and secondary school system. Every other community we have lived in
(four other states) have blown away the quality of even Oakland County's best school
districts.
• Neighborhoods and schools
• Nice community, good services, great location, safe
• Not applicable, people just need a job in today’s State economic condition
• Oakland County is more "Upscale" than the surrounding counties which makes it
easier to attract employees
• Oakland County's competition like Wayne County for example, suck.
• OK for educated workforce. Midwest values of employees. Typically loyal
workforce.
• Outdoor recreational opportunities; primary schools
• Positive business development programs, companies involved in international
business, cultural opportunities.
• Professional, positive, infrastructure and security
• Property values, proximity to retail businesses, proximity to restaurants, good school
systems
• Proximity and access to roadways home and to clients, thus minimizing the commute.
• Proximity and security
• Proximity to customers and suppliers
• Proximity to their homes
• Quality of area
• Quality of life due to earnings to cost of living.
• Quality of life, good schools, low crime, historically an availability of good jobs
• Quality of life, safety
• Quality of life, schools, taxes, cost of living, public transportation
• Quality of life, transportation network and diverse housing market
• Quality of life.
• Quality of primary schools. Decent traffic infrastructure. Controlled and planned
growth when it happens. Core jobs are technology based. Though continuously
diminishing at a rapid pace OC has more opportunities then surrounding areas.
• Quality of schools, recreational opportunities, safety and overall location in relation
to the Detroit Metropolitan Area.
• Quality schools and prestigious homes at affordable prices Parks, entertainment &
dining
• Reasonable commute; close to recreation opportunities, schools.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 101

• Safe, comfortable place to raise a family (including availability of excellent public
education)
• Safety and education.
• Safety of my employees is important to me and the ability to get to work easily from
area freeways and roads
• Schools and parks
• Schools, lifestyle
• Strong safe community characteristics, very strong educational systems, easy access
to all
• Support of County Executive and organizations like Automation Alley
• The ability to offer many different living styles from living on the lake, country side,
suburbs, city, high tech and hip areas.
• The education level of the residents, the wealth of the community, and the possible
activities that are available.
• The fact that our major customers and competitors are located in Oakland County
• The infrastructure that has been developed for business.
• The quality of life including vibrant towns and villages
• Transportation infrastructure, growth potential and quality of life
• Very good schools/universities nearby, safe area, affordable housing costs, life
besides works in various ways.
• Vibrant business community. Pro-active county (but not always pro-active cities).
High quality residential for relatively short driving distance from work to home.
Good freeways. Good supportive businesses.
• We are dropping the ball altogether on this. Oakland County is a beautiful wonderful
place. However it has traditionally been the only county in Southeast Michigan rich
enough to keep picking up the slack when other communities cannot pay. We also
need Opportunity. We need to attract and retain Technology, Pharmaceutical and
Financial companies here to the State. Not just satellites, but Headquarters locations.
In addition we need these companies to feel profitable in doing so and not that they
are picking up the slack in taxes for other organizations that have moved out of
Michigan. We need to make Michigan a beneficial affordable solution for
Companies. We also need to clean up the corrupt neighboring government issues we
currently have. Every dollar they spend on the wrong things (themselves) gives
Michigan a bad name and prevents us from attracting legitimate organizations.
Finally we need to reskill the labor force here. We have a lot of smart out of work
auto employees who should be given two year Associate degrees so they can pay for
the second two years towards bachelor’s degrees. This would ensure that we evolve
our workforce to meet the demands of more sophisticated global organizations. We
need to transform ourselves into thinkers and away from the Mfg. mindset.
Innovation and stability is what we have going for us as a country. Michigan can lead
the way in this.
• We like our proximity to downtown Auburn Hills but wish the development was a
little more stable. Our employees regularly go to sporting events both downtown and
102
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources

in AH. Crime has not been an issue in and around our building. Housing is scaring
most of our employees. Most feel stuck or afraid to upgrade their current situation.
Gas prices are stretching some of our employees who travel from Southern Oakland
or Macomb.
• Well educated workforce.
Economic Impact of Oakland County’s Water Resources 103